Floating SMR Affirmative - HSS 2014

SMRs Af
Notes
Argument Matrix
Advantage One Global Shipping
000: Shipping emissions are high now
010: Nuke tech solves makes less emissions
011: Nuke tech solves more cost effective
020: Energy costs leads to shipping decline (?)
021: Emissions make shipping unsustainable
022: Energy mkt volatility makes shipping with conventional fuels unsustainable
023: Arctic Shipping inevitable, but emissons cause environmental harm
030: Shipping is key to global trade
031: Specifically, Arctic shipping is key to increased global trade
032: Independently, nuclear shipping is key to sustain the environment
040: Global Trade solves war
041: Prefer this impact its an impact filter preconditions all their intervening actors claims
042: arctic melting causes positive feedback cycles that make warming and environmental
destruction inevitable
Advantage Two - Heg
100: US Naval Power threatened now
110: SMRs k/ naval readiness and mobility
120: Thats key to power projection
121: k/ sustain naval power writ large
130: k/ heg overall
131: Independently, collapse of naval power war
140: Heg solves war
Advantage Three Tsunamis
200: Tsunamis/other nat disasters coming now warming
201: theyll hit nuclear plants worst
210: that causes spills and explosions
220: terminal ! to explosions
230: the plams key to solve offshore SMRs are best
Advantage Four Nuclear Energy Leadership
300: US Nuclear Energy leadership low now
310: Plan reinvigorates leadership
320: thats key to effective global renewables
321: that spills over to effective soft power
322: that leads to effective environmental leadership
Case Neg
Northwestern and Cal read this aff on the college topic a few years ago
Coal DA
Russian SMR DA
Nuclear Expertise K
Stiegler K
Research
SMRs Solvency
John Licata, 4/27/2014, Founder & Chief Energy Strategist of Blue Phoenix Inc. and the
author of Lessons from Frankenstorm: Investing for Future Power Disruptions, BS Economics
@ St. Peters University, MBA @ NYU Stern, Can Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Find Their
Sea Legs? The Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/27/can-smallmodular-nuclear-reactors-find-their-sea.aspx
Nuclear power plants do bring jobs to rural areas, and in some cases they actually boost local
housing prices since these plants create jobs. However, whether or not you believe nuclear
power does or does not emit harmful radiation, many people would likely opt to not live
right next door to a nuclear power plant facility if they had the choice. Today, they may not
even need to consider such a move thanks to a floating plant concept coming out of MIT, which
largely builds on the success of the U.S. Army of Corp Engineers' MH-1A floating nuclear
reactor, installed on the Sturgis, a vessel that provided power to military and civilians around the
Panama Canal. The Sturgis was decommissioned, but only because there was ample power
generation on land. So the viability of a floating nuclear plant does make a lot of sense.
Presently the only floating nuclear plant is being constructed in Russia (expected to be in
service in two years). However, that plant is slated to be moored on a barge in a harbor. That
differs from MIT's idea to put a 200 MWe reactor on a floating platform roughly six miles out to
sea. The problem with the floating reactor idea or land-based SMR version is most
investors are hard-pressed to fork over money needed for a nuclear build-out that could
cost billions of dollars and take over a decade to complete. That very problem is today
plaguing the land-based mPower SMR program of The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (NYSE:
BWC ) . Also, although the reactors would have a constant cooling source in the ocean
water, I'd like to see studies that show that sea life is not disrupted. Then there is always the
issue with security and power lines to the mainland which needs to be addressed. At a time
when reducing global warming is becoming a hotly debated topic by the IPCC, these SMRs (land
or sea based) can help reduce our carbon footprint if legislation would allow them to
proceed. Instead, the government is taking perfectly good cathedral-sized nuclear power
plants offline, something they will likely come to regret in coming years from an economic and
environmental perspective. Just ask the Germans. SMRs can produce dependable baseload
power that is more affordable for isolated communities, and they can be used in remote
areas by energy and metals production companies while traditional reactors cannot. So the
notion of plopping SMRs several miles offshore so they can withstand tsunami swells is
really interesting. If the concept can actually gain momentum that would help Babcock,
Westinghouse, and NuScale Power. I would also speculate that technology currently being used
in the oil and gas drilling sector, possibly even from the robotics industry, could be
integrated into offshore light water nuclear designs for mooring, maintenance, and routine
operational purposes. In today's modern world, we have a much greater dependence on
consumer electronics, we are swapping our dependence of foreign oil with a growing
reliance for domestic natural gas, and we face increasing pressures to combat climate
change here at home as well as meet our own 2020 carbon goals. With that said, we need to
think longer term and create domestic clean energy industries that can foster new jobs, help
keep the power on even when blackouts occur and produce much less carbon at both the
private and public sector levels. Therefore to me, advancing the SMR industry on land or by
sea is a nice way to fight our archaic energy paradigm and move our energy supply into a
modern era. Yet without the government's complete commitment to support nuclear power
via legislation and a much needed expedited certification process, the idea of a floating SMR
plant will be another example of wasted energy innovation that could simply get buried at sea.
SMRs Tsunami Solvency sea based SMRs key to solve

major issues
David L. Chandler 4/16/2014, freelance writer, author of 2 books, He was at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999-2000, on a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship,
and has since served as a judge for the fellowship's application process Floating nuclear plants
could ride out tsunamis, MIT News, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/floating-nuclear-plantscould-ride-out-tsunamis-0416
When an earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex in
2011, neither the quake nor the inundation caused the ensuing contamination. Rather, it was
the aftereffects specifically, the lack of cooling for the reactor cores, due to a shutdown
of all power at the station that caused most of the harm. A new design for nuclear plants
built on floating platforms, modeled after those used for offshore oil drilling, could help
avoid such consequences in the future. Such floating plants would be designed to be
automatically cooled by the surrounding seawater in a worst-case scenario, which would
indefinitely prevent any melting of fuel rods, or escape of radioactive material. The concept
is being presented this week at the Small Modular Reactors Symposium, hosted by the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, by MIT professors Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, and
Neil Todreas, along with others from MIT, the University of Wisconsin, and Chicago Bridge and
Iron, a major nuclear plant and offshore platform construction company. Such plants, Buongiorno
explains, could be built in a shipyard, then towed to their destinations five to seven miles
offshore, where they would be moored to the seafloor and connected to land by an underwater
electric transmission line. The concept takes advantage of two mature technologies: lightwater nuclear reactors and offshore oil and gas drilling platforms. Using established designs
minimizes technological risks, says Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science
and engineering (NSE) at MIT. Although the concept of a floating nuclear plant is not
unique Russia is in the process of building one now, on a barge moored at the shore none
have been located far enough offshore to be able to ride out a tsunami, Buongiorno says. For
this new design, he says, the biggest selling point is the enhanced safety. A floating
platform several miles offshore, moored in about 100 meters of water, would be unaffected
by the motions of a tsunami; earthquakes would have no direct effect at all. Meanwhile, the
biggest issue that faces most nuclear plants under emergency conditions overheating and
potential meltdown , as happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island would
be virtually impossible at sea, Buongiorno says: Its very close to the ocean, which is
essentially an infinite heat sink, so its possible to do cooling passively, with no intervention.
The reactor containment itself is essentially underwater. Buongiorno lists several other
advantages. For one thing, it is increasingly difficult and expensive to find suitable sites for
new nuclear plants: They usually need to be next to an ocean, lake, or river to provide
cooling water, but shorefront properties are highly desirable. By contrast, sites offshore, but
out of sight of land, could be located adjacent to the population centers they would serve.
The ocean is inexpensive real estate, Buongiorno says. In addition, at the end of a plants
lifetime, decommissioning could be accomplished by simply towing it away to a central
facility, as is done now for the Navys carrier and submarine reactors. That would rapidly
restore the site to pristine conditions. This design could also help to address practical
construction issues that have tended to make new nuclear plants uneconomical: Shipyard
construction allows for better standardization, and the all-steel design eliminates the use of
concrete, which Buongiorno says is often responsible for construction delays and cost
overruns. There are no particular limits to the size of such plants, he says: They could be
anywhere from small, 50-megawatt plants to 1,000-megawatt plants matching todays largest
facilities. Its a flexible concept, Buongiorno says. Floating nuclear plants could withstand
earthquakes and tsunamis Video: Christopher Sherrill, courtesy of the Department of Nuclear
Science and Engineering Most operations would be similar to those of onshore plants, and
the plant would be designed to meet all regulatory security requirements for terrestrial
plants. Project work has confirmed the feasibility of achieving this goal , including
satisfaction of the extra concern of protection against underwater attack, says Todreas, the
KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.
Buongiorno sees a market for such plants in Asia, which has a combination of high tsunami
risks and a rapidly growing need for new power sources. It would make a lot of sense for
Japan, he says, as well as places such as Indonesia, Chile, and Africa. This is a very
attractive and promising proposal, says Toru Obara, a professor at the Research Laboratory
for Nuclear Reactors at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who was not involved in this research.
I think this is technically very feasible. ... Of course, further study is needed to realize the
concept, but the authors have the answers to each question and the answers are realistic.
SMRs Shipping Solvency Nuclear Power

Hirdaris et.al., March 2014 Lead Specialist, Lloyd's Register, CEng MRINA, S.E.
Hirdarisa, , , Y.F. Chenga, P. Shallcrossb, J. Bonafouxb, D. Carlsonc, B. Princec, G.A. Sarrisd,
Considerations on the potential use of Nuclear Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology for
merchant marine propulsion, Ocean Engineering, ScienceDirect
2. The potential of nuclear marine propulsion
To realise the importance of considering modern nuclear marine propulsion technology
options it is important to appreciate the global impact of anthropogenic emissions induced
by the international shipping sector. In recent years, different approaches for estimating the
overall global shipping emissions have been presented (e.g. IMO, 2009 and Paxian et al., 2010).
Walsh and Bows (2012) explain that the availability and range emission factors for shipping are
still susceptible to some uncertainty related with the so called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and
Product Chain Assessment (PCA) concepts. The IMO estimates that today shipping contributes
between 2.7% and 3.3% of the global CO2 emissions annually (IMO, 2009). This number,
on its own, would place this industry, in absolute terms, as the sixth in line between
countries that are the largest producers of anthropogenic emissions. If no action is taken
these emissions could grow significantly and by 2050 they could amount between 12% and
18% of the total allowable CO2 induced GHG under the International Energy Agency 450
ppm stabilisation scenario (OECD/IEA, 2008). This implies that, in comparison to 2007,
anthropogenic emissions from shipping may be expected to range between 6% and 22%
(9251058 Mt of CO2 emissions) higher in 2020 and between 119% and 204% (19032648 Mt
of CO2 emissions) by 2050. Looking into the medium to long term options (see Table 1) it
appears that, except for hydrogen which is not ready for shipboard installation (Aspelund et
al., 2006), there is currently no solution that eliminates all emissions and none can offer a
significant CO2 reduction. For example, natural gas is a promising medium term solution
provided that sufficient port infrastructure is developed (Lloyd's Register, 2012a). On the
other hand, renewable energy sources (solar and wind) can offer only limited capacity to the
overall power requirements for ocean going ships and hence they would be mostly appropriate
for auxiliary propulsion solutions (Hirdaris and Cheng, 2012). Fuel cells are an extremely
efficient way of producing energy if hydrogen is used (San and Bradshaw, 2012). However, the
lack of availability of hydrogen resources and its low volumetric energy density implies that
the solution may take some time to be implemented (Andrews and Shabani, 2012; Hirose,
2012). With the world's merchant shipping reported to have a total power capacity of about 410
GWt (approximately 1/3 of world nuclear power plants) understanding the potential of
implementing nuclear technology options seems conceivable. Apart from the need to
mitigate the climate change agenda, the resurgence of interest in nuclear propelled ships
that could potentially operate in the merchant marine sector is also supported by: Energy
security, i.e. the global desire to diversify fuel sources, reduce dependence on fossil fuel
import/export market and develop immunity to onboard power disruptions; The desire to
mitigate volatile fuel costs, given the low dependence of the price nuclear power on the price
of uranium; The need to prepare the transition towards the hydrogen economy. In contrast
to hydrocarbon driven combustion, nuclear fission entails no chemical reactions and hence
may provide energy free of greenhouse gas emissions. As reported by Sathaye et al. (2011)
lifecycle GHG emissions from fossil fuels are by far higher than nuclear lifecycle indirect
emissions. The same holds for most obvious renewable energy technologies (e.g. solar panels)
with the exception of hydro-power and wind assisted solutions (e.g. wind turbines technology).
The later is due to the fact that the overall nuclear fuel cycle has some emissions associated
with the released energy of uranium fission arising from the kinetic energy of the charged
fission fragments, the beta and gamma decay of gamma rays as well as the energy of neutrons.
Additional emissions may occur through plant construction, uranium mining and milling, plant
decommissioning and last but not least fuel depleting (Lamarsh and Baratta, 2001).
SMRs How it works

4.2. Generation II technology
Typical marine nuclear reactors operate on the basis of nuclear fission and contain Uranium (U)
atoms sealed within metal cladding. U is one of the few materials capable of producing heat in a
self-sustained chain reaction. Nuclear fission is induced when a neutron is absorbed in a large
atom such as 235U, 239Pu or 233U. Absorption of this type can set up vibrations within the
nucleus which cause it to become distended to the point where it splits apart under mutual
electrostatic repulsion of the parts. If this happens the atom splits into fragments (known as
fission products e.g. caesium, strontium). By the same time energy is released together with two
or three neutrons (see Fig. 5). While the neutrons split new U atoms, causing a rapid
(exponential) growth in the number of fissions, the released energy may be controlled for use in
the nuclear reactor. Most of the heat produced in the splitting process comes from radioactivity
created during fission. This is because some of the fission products are highly radioactive when
formed. Hence, both safety and security are important for design and operations. Generation II
marine nuclear reactors use mostly thermal neutron moderator materials and they are therefore
thermal reactors. Thermal neutrons have a higher probability of fissioning the fissile 235U, 239Pu
or 241Pu and less probability of neutron capture by 238U as compared to neutrons that originally
result from fission. They allow for the use of low enriched uranium with water as moderator
material. In use marine reactors are designated as Light Water Reactors (LWR). PWR propulsion
plant designs primarily include two closed systems (isolated loops) namely primary and
secondary (see Fig. 6). The primary loop, in order to avoid boiling, circulates ordinary pressurised
water and consists of the reactor, piping loops, pumps and steam generators. In the secondary
system the steam flows from the steam generators to drive the turbine generators and to the main
propulsion turbines which drive the propeller. In LWR reactors the primary coolant (water) is
pumped under high pressure to the reactor core where it is heated by the energy generated by the
fission of atoms. The heated water then flows to a steam generator where it transfers its thermal
energy to a secondary system. There, steam is generated and flows to turbines which, in turn, spin
an electric generator producing the required thrust for propulsive power. Neutron absorbing
control rods are used to adjust the power output of the reactor. These are typically made of strong
neutron absorbers (e.g. boron and/or cadmium) and are inserted amongst the fuel assemblies.
When the rods are withdrawn slightly from their positions more neutrons are available for
splitting U atoms and hence the power output increases. Control rods may then be re-inserted to
allow for the stabilisation of the power level and may be automatically shut down in case of
emergency. To protect the operator from radiation effects shields are installed around the reactor.
For example, a typical PWR would contain over 100 t of lead shielding and would be heavier
than a typical diesel engine. Whereas the specification of engineering systems is similar to steam
turbine plant the ships strength is adjusted to accommodate for the properties of the reactor and
the safety requirements in case of collision and grounding. The potential for back up or
emergency propulsion and automatic shut down are two additional design features that are taken
under consideration.
SMRs Shipping Solvency

Even
though the nuclear environment has changed since the writing of the IMO (1981) Resolution
A.491 XII most of the safety principles are applicable today. However, there are a number of areas
where ship safety assessment requirements have changed due to advances in technology and
detailed methods underpinning regulatory requirements. For example, at detailed design stage it might be
pertinent to use a probabilistic rather than deterministic approach for damage stability . It
The feasibility study presented in this paper is based on a top level risk assessment process driven by qualitative objectives.
also might be more appropriate to ensure engineering capability is achieved while the risks to life and the environment, as far as
practicable, are mitigated in an appropriately transparent manner. This approach is consistent with the regulation of most land-based
nuclear industries. Within this context, the marine industry could base its approach on instruments
similar to the INF Code (INF, 1974). The Lloyds Register guidance notes for marine nuclear propulsion (Lloyds Register,
2011) introduce the concept of the so called design authority. Following this approach may help to ensure that
the overall design, construction and operation, of a nuclear ship as an integrated system are
assured. Without any intention to constraint the direction of any future innovation initiatives the following research and
development directions could help to develop the required knowledge for future classification and approval: The risk based design
development process presented has not considered in detail the IMO FSA guidelines. Future development and modernisation of the
nuclear specific maritime regulations (e.g. INF, 1974 and IMO, 1981) may require the development of a database and methodology of
marine accident investigation encompassing such goal based risk based design principles (e.g. Cai et al., 2012); Optimisation of the
introduced design using holistic multi criteria objectives applicable to alternative arrangements and operational scenarios has not been
considered. Further work on this direction could assist with realisation of practical design constraints, options and their applicability
(e.g. Papanikolaou, 2010); This study did not address explicitly detailed design verification aspects related with the mitigation of
the effects of wave or accidental loads (e.g. grounding, collision, fire and explosion) or extreme events (e.g. rogue waves, piracy and
terrorist attacks) magnifying risk. Naturally such work would be essential at detailed. Considering the practical complexities
associated with undertaking such type of work research and development activities would be expected to play an important role in
capturing the effects of risk peculiar to nuclear ships (e.g. see Dietrich, 1976, Hirdaris et al., 2011b, Subin et al., 2012, Temarel and
Hirdaris, 2009 and Paik et al., 1998); The EHFA identified a number of potential human hazards that could cause failures or
contribute to the occurrence of failures as identified by the HAZID. Absence of key maritime regulations constraint this part of the
analysis. Further development will be necessary to integrate human factors requirements possibly from the nuclear into the marine
industry framework. Whereas there seems to be good potential in furthering research efforts, it is imperative to realise that
commercial realisation of nuclear shipping will have to carve out space or niche for itself amongst other propulsion technology
options by bridging technical or technological challenges with economic, social and political factors. Convincing stakeholders about
the technical and operational, safety and security issues of the asset over its lifecycle may not be solely rooted upon technical but
commercial, legislative risks as well as perceptions. To this end the following key issues should be considered: Classification and
regulation framework: It is possible that application of SMR technology onboard ocean going vessels would imply that the existing
maritime regulatory framework would have to be reviewed. In this new era Classification Societies would be responsible for
facilitating the assurance for the successful integration of reactor modules on the ship within the context of risk based design and will
have to ensure that hazards from/to the ship reactor are managed. On the other hand, land based nuclear
regulators would have to be involved in classifying/assuring the reactor and facilitating an

open dialogue with the builder and designers. Since the regulatory and policy framework
for SMR implementation is still unknown facilitation of the concept presented may not be
imminently possible. Variation of national regulations for ship construction, the need for adoption of special flag authority
procedures add on additional potential showstoppers. Considering that the current style of regulation within the maritime industry is
prescriptive and the operational framework of national nuclear administrations is highly segmented, addressing the needs of the
technology, regulators and organisations involved within the context harmonised performance based standards that account for the
demands of both nuclear and shipping industries at worldwide level seems rather challenging. Public perception: Convincing
stakeholders about the technical and operational safety of the ship is a key challenge and
stakeholder perceptions may or may not be rooted in actual risks. To many, nuclear reactors,
whether of SMR or older technology, will be inescapably linked with accidents such as Fukushima,
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. This reaction in the aftermath of nuclear accidents increases the challenges faced by the nuclear
industry. Nuclear ships will be subject to particular attention, during design, construction, operation and decommissioning. Any
nuclear accident, on land or at sea, could impact on nuclear merchant shipping and the acceptability might change over time in
response to public and societal reactions that may be extreme. Maritime operations and infrastructure: The necessity to
provide an effective emergency response capability supported by external agencies is

anticipated to put additional requirements on competence development for all stakeholders. Ship specific competence
development and assurance for shore and ship personnel will be almost certainly required
for the reliable operation of nuclear-powered vessels. This may require a new model for resourcing that is
significantly different to that traditionally employed in the maritime industry in order to deliver continuity of expertise. Broad
technical and institutional challenges involve the deployment, testing and validation of
technological innovations in components, systems and engineering (especially testing and fabrication of fuel), fear
of first-of-kind reactor designs, economy-of-scale, perceived risk factors for nuclear power plants, and regulatory and licensing issues.
Other issues to be addressed are the cost of reactor decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel and
supply chain management. 9. Conclusions This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear
propulsion and for the purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker
powered by the Gen4Energy 70MW SMR. Assessment of the risks associated with different SMR
locations and power train systems suggested that an SMR located aft the cargo tanks, below
the foreword end of the accommodation would be preferable. A direct shaft line with a CRP
Azipod mechanical installation would be the preferred main propulsion option on the basis
that it would lead to a modest 11% increase to the overall ship length compared to the
reference design, once the necessary adjustments are made for the changes in hydrostatic trim. Such arrangement
combined with a conventional diesel engine would be adequate for propulsive redundancy
assuming operations and faults under harbour and ocean going conditions. The risk
assessment process and engineering solutions developed demonstrate that the concept that
has been described would be feasible. However, considering that the current style of regulation
within the maritime industry is prescriptive and the operational framework of national
nuclear administrations is highly segmented, readdressing the needs of the technology,
regulators and organisations involved within the context of harmonised performance based
standards will be necessary for the pragmatic implementation of the concept presented over
the long term. International shipping has a well established reputation as the most energy efficient
mode of freight transport. However, treating shipping within the context of global
environmental concerns has gained significant momentum over the last 10 years , particularly in
relation to the generation of Green House Gases (GHG) and other contributions to air and water pollution.
Shipping relies on fuel oil and this implies that understanding the potential of alternative
non-carbon marine propulsion technologies is necessary as the industry moves forward
with its longer term decarbonisation efforts. Without any intend to underestimate the potential environmental and
economic benefits of renewable, natural gas or non-fossil (e.g. biofuels) energy resources, it would be only sensible to
add on the nuclear engineering option as a possible alternative. As successful as traditional nuclear
propulsion has been in the naval and ice breaker ship segments, one aspect of the industry that escaped attention
in the commercial sector is the use of modern small and medium size reactor technology onboard ocean going vessels. This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and for the
purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker powered by the
Gen4Energy 70MW Small Modular Reactor (SMR). It is shown that understanding the technical risks and implications of
implementing modern nuclear technology is an essential first step in the long term process of developing knowledge and experience.
Specificaly
The Suezmax Tanker design application presented in this paper is based on the Gen4Energy
Generation IV, PbBi (lead bismuth LBE) cooled SMR developed in association with the US
Los Alamos National Laboratory. This reactor belongs to the Type II: Fast Neutron Reactor
(FNR group) outlined in Table 5. The basic commercial characteristics of the reactor system (see
Table 6) have been derived with the aim to develop a technology that is modern, easy to develop
and operate, transportable, requires no onsite refuelling, provides reasonably high power output
and associated maximum thermal efficiency in comparison to the reactor size. The technology has
been initially designed for remote land based power generation. However, it is believed that the
top level technology selections outlined in this paper may be adaptable to ocean going vessels.
The SMR comprises of the following two systems (see Fig. 10):
The primary system which is a single loop, liquid metal cooled fast reactor using Lithium Boron
Eutectic (LBE) as coolant. The reactor module has been sized to be transportable and is shielded
in a containment that can provide protection from external threats. When the module is connected
to the primary loop, the liquid metal coolant is pumped through the reactor module to heat
exchangers that heat the secondary liquid metal circuit. Additional primary system components
include the cover gas system and the oxygen control system;
The secondary system which is a steam generation system and operates as a steam Rankine cycle.
The steam generator contains a feed pump, an evaporator and a super-heater. High and low
pressure turbines are connected to a common shaft. The condensate system includes a condenser
and a condensate pump.
Table 6.
Gen4Energy SMR basic commercial characteristics.
Reactor power 70 MWthermal
Electrical output
25 MWelectrical
Lifetime
10 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY)
Size
1.5 m diameter4 m tall (marinised concept version)
Weight Less than 50 t including pressure vessel, fuel and primary coolant LBE
Structural material
Stainless steel
Coolant PbBi
Fuel Stainless clad, uranium nitride (UN)

Enrichment
235U<20%
Refuel on site No
Sealed core
Yes
Licence Design certification
Passive shutdown
Yes
Active shutdown
Yes
Transportable Yes, intact core
Factory fuelled Yes
Safety and control elements
2 redundant shutdown systems & reactivity control rods
Table options
Full-size image (150 K)
Fig. 10.
Gen4Energy SMR power generation core module.
Figure options
The rational of the key Gen4Energy SMR technology selections are outlined below:
Fast reactor technology: A fast spectrum system has been preferred to achieve a long core lifetime
without refuelling because the absorption cross section of fission products for fast neutrons is
small. Thus the impact of fission products on reactivity is small and there is relatively little
isotropic transmutation that could reduce reactivity. As a result, the loss of reactivity during burnup is almost entirely attributable to the change in actinide inventory (primarily fission of 235U).
While the reactor is first of a kind system the fast reactor technology employed has been used for
over 10 years by the Russians in the Alfa Class submarines. The risk for this system has been
reduced by using a fast spectrum core that is simpler than a moderated core with respect to
reactivity feedback/burnup mechanisms, nuclear data uncertainties, dynamic performance, system
modelling and predictability as well as changes in system characteristics with lifetime.
Reactor core coolant: Liquid metal is selected for the reactor core coolant because it allows for a
compact core design, one that can produce a high coolant temperature (500 C approximately) for
process heat applications and provides for good system efficiency.From the different metal
coolants initially considered namely sodium (Na), lead (Pb) and LBE the later has been preferred.
In specific LBE was selected over Pb because of its much lower melting temperature and minimal
expansion at melting. Both issues are important for transport simplicity and system reliability.
The major reason why LBE was selected over Na is based on the desire to avoid the risk of
potential Na leak and subsequent chemical reaction with water or air.
Nuclear fuel: Uranium Nitride (UN) was preferred over Uranium metal (U) or Uranium Oxide
(UO2). This is because UN provides superior thermal conductivity, high core life, low fission gas
release and low fuel swelling as well as greater resistance to irradiation damage over extended
periods of time. The system uses 19.75% enriched UN pellets contained in tubes made of HT-9
stainless steel ( NSMH, 1988; Serrano De Caro and Rodriguez, 2012). The pin assembly is filled
with LBE liquid to provide a high conductivity thermal bond between the fuel and the cladding.
Reactor core design: The system uses a UN open lattice fast reactor core (see Fig. 11). This is
because this engineering solution provides for light design facilitating transportation and a
straightforward nuclear design that is well suited to a long life without refuelling. The outer
diameter of the entire reactor, including the outer reactor and coolant down corner, is limited to
1.5 m to be able to seal the reactor at the fabrication facility and transport it to and from the site.

Fig. 11. Plan view of reactor core.
Figure options
The system operates two independent reactivity shut down systems in the core namely: (a) a
control rod system composed of 6 inner and 12 outer B4C shutdown rods and (b) a reserve
shutdown system consisting of a cavity into which a single B4C rod may be inserted (see Fig.
12).
Fig. 12. Elevation view of the core and vessel.
Figure options
The reactor has redundant, independent and diverse means to remove decay heat under all plant
shutdown conditions. During operational shutdowns heat is removed by a system that transfers
heat from the core by circulation of coolants via a secondary liquid metal loop in the steam
generator system. The second system removes heat by natural circulation of coolant in the
primary loop and by passive vaporisation of water from the surface of the reactor vessel. The
water evaporation cooling system would be activated only if the primary heat removal system
was unable to function.
Risk analysis
The brief review of accident statistics presented in this section considered merchant Tankers,
naval submarines as well as accidents from the PWR drive technology demonstrator vessels that
operated in the past. Despite the limited availability of the nuclear fleet related accidents this
review assisted with drawing a preliminary picture of the technical and operational matters
considered during Stage 2 of the analysis. Tanker accidents given by the IMO (IMO MEPC,
2008), post 1990 OPA cases (Eliopoulou et al., 2012) and the Centre for Tankship eXcellence
database statistics (C4TX, 2013) have also been reviewed (see Fig. 15). Notably, 40% of those
accidents are related with structural failures. Based on past work from Reistad (2008), WNA
(2012) and lgaard (2001) from the total of 58 accidents involving various operational PWR
powered submarine vessels that have been reported 39 were taken under consideration (see Fig.
16). The remaining 19 were considered dubious and have been neglected. To the list of
meaningful submarine accidents the concept design team added: (a) the tragic experience from
radiation leakage suspected deaths of personnel serving on the Soviet submarine K-27 that
operated a VT-1 experimental reactor and (b) the tragic loss of 118 seagoing personnel on the
Russian submarine Kursk following explosion in 2000.
Fig. 15.
Oil Tanker Accident Statistics source data from C4TX (2013).
Figure options
Fig. 16.
Key naval nuclear submarine accidents (NB: Propulsion failure may involve the reactor system
although in most cases this seems not to be the case; Other reasons involve collisions and
suspected operator error): (a) Indicative % of submarine accidents, (b) Indicative submarine
fatalities and (c) Indicative % of submarines sunk.
Figure options
The following hand picked lessons emerging from PWR merchant marine technology
demonstrators were also considered:
In 1970 at the first official run of NS Mutsu very high levels of gamma and neutron radiation
were measured. It was discovered that neutrons had leaked out through the gap between the
reactor and the primary shield hitting the secondary shield structure and producing gamma rays;
In 1965, when NS Lenin was undergoing repairs and refuelling severe mechanical damage to the
fuel assemblies was detected during the removal of the used fuel from reactor number two. It was
established that the reactor core had been left without cooling water due to human error;
In 1967 NS Lenins piping of the tertiary circuit sprung a leak following the loading of fresh
nuclear fuel. Further reactor damage was sustained, when the biological shield of the reactor
compartment was opened to locate the leak.
The key conclusions from this process may be summarised as follows:
Accidents on naval or merchant or naval vessels should be considered in the safety case that
would be conducted by the relevant national authority even if they refer to older versions of
nuclear technology (e.g. PWR).
Apart from the VT1 experimental reactor that operated on the Soviet submarine K-27 there is no
information on accidents of the nuclear naval fleet using SMR technology. However, because the
nuclear technology used on submarines is battery like it provides some useful information.
In the naval submarine sector fires and explosions are the most dangerous accidents for the crews.
Those do not involve the reactor units in contrast to loss-of coolant and criticality accidents.
Tanker safety has improved. However, structural failures are still significant and cannot be
ignored. Safety risks due to accidental loads are still present and cannot be eliminated entirely.
The later is also supported by the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig accident, where hydrocarbon
fires exceeding 1300 C led to melting of the steel structures (USA NC, 2011).
The promised features of the SMR technology under consideration versus PWR used in the land
sector (see Table 7) implies that risks may be lower. However, this is to be proved in practise.
SMRs Shipping Solvency - Efficient and cheap energy is

key to sustain the shipping industry SMRs are key.
Sylvia Pfeifer, 2/14/2013, Energy Editor at The Financial Times, BA in German and
English @ Oxford, MA in English @ Georgetown, Nuclear energy: Flexible fission, FT,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/71d62476-706e-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#axzz386y16Uvc
Akademik Lomonosovs small plant represents a radical new trend in the nuclear industry. After
more than 50 years in which the pursuit of economies of scale and more power has made
nuclear plants bigger and bigger, they are now shrinking. The atomic industry is thinking
small. Cost is driving the change. At a time when utility companies are struggling financially
and delays on large reactors lengthen, small reactors offer hope. They typically generate up
to 300 megawatts of electricity per reactor about a fifth of the output of a normal full-size
plant and are about a third of the physical size of traditional ones. Their size means their
capital cost should be much lower, making them attractive to lenders who would also see a
quicker return on their investment. Centrica, the British utility, pulled out of a project this month
to build big reactors in the UK, blaming spiralling costs and delays. Small nuclear plants also
offer flexibility. They could power remote or standalone industrial sites or desalination
plants. If they were put together in batches, they would give nuclear power the kind of gridfriendly flexibility now offered by gas or coal-fired stations. Developing nations that do not have
established electricity distribution networks are another potential market. A final attraction is
that these smaller reactors could be built in factories in relatively large numbers. Big nuclear
plants, which require heavy civil engineering works as well as a difficult fusion of mechanical,
electrical and computer systems, have a tendency to be delivered late and over budget. The
market has started to appreciate there could be commercial applications for smaller
reactors, says Richard Clegg, global nuclear director at Lloyds Register. They are already
being used for military applications. It is a real prospect, not a fantasy. Executives believe
such innovation is necessary if the industry is to secure a long-term place in the worlds
changing energy mix, one that looks for affordable power and reduced carbon emissions.
The worlds demand for electricity will grow almost twice as fast as its total energy
consumption by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency. Nuclear offers a lowcarbon source of power but concerns about its safety, as well as costs and delays, persist.
From waste to fuel
SMRs Inherency No current surface ships are powered

by nuclear energy
Ronald O'Rourke 9-29-2010, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface
Ships: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, Congressional Research Service,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf
All of the Navys aircraft carriers, but none of its other surface ships, are nuclear-powered.
Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have
expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface
ships, starting with the CG(X), a planned new cruiser that the Navy had wanted to start procuring around FY2017.
Section 1012 of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) makes it U.S. policy to
construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including ships like the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the
Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of
ship is not in the national interest. The Navy studied nuclear power as a design option for the CG(X),
but did not announce whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship .
The Navys FY2011 budget proposes canceling the CG(X) program and instead building an improved
version of the conventionally powered Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer. The cancellation of the CG(X)
program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for
expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft
carriers.
SMRs Navy Solvency - Nuclear ships good for the Navy

Jack Spencer and Baker Spring 11/5/2007, Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in the
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research
Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for
International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear
Navy, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-advantages-of-expanding-thenuclear-navy
Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include nuclear propulsion. The House
version of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 calls for all future major combatant vessels to
be powered by an integrated nuclear power and propulsion system; the Senate version does not.
While Congress must be careful in dictating how America's armed forces are resourced, it also
has a constitutional mandate "to provide and maintain a Navy." Although nuclear-powered
ships have higher upfront costs, their many advantages make a larger nuclear navy critical
for protecting national security interests in the 21st century. Nuclear Propulsion's Unique
Benefits As the defense authorization bill is debated, Members of the House and Senate should
consider the following features of nuclear propulsion: Unparalleled Flexibility. A nuclear
surface ship brings optimum capability to bear. A recent study by the Navy found the
nuclear option to be superior to conventional fuels in terms of surge ability, moving from
one theater to another, and staying on station. Admiral Kirkland Donald, director of the Navy
Nuclear Propulsion Program, said in recent congressional testimony, "Without the
encumbrances of fuel supply logistics, our nuclear-powered warships can get to areas of
interest quicker, ready to enter the fight, and stay on station longer then their fossil-fueled
counterparts." High-Power Density. The high density of nuclear power, i.e., the amount of
volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high
impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft, remote-operated and autonomous vehicles, and
weapons. When compared to its conventional counterpart, a nuclear aircraft carrier can carry
twice the amount of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons, and 300,000 cubic feet of
additional space (which would be taken up by air intakes and exhaust trunks in gas turbinepowered carriers). This means that ships can get to station faster and deliver more impact, which
will be critical to future missions. This energy supply is also necessary for new, powerintensive weapons systems like rail-guns and directed-energy weapons as well as for the
powerful radar that the Navy envisions. Real-Time Response . Only a nuclear ship can
change its mission and respond to a crisis in real-time. On September 11, 2001, the USS
Enterprise--then on its way home from deployment--responded to news of the terrorist attacks by
rerouting and entering the Afghan theater. Energy Independence. The armed forces have
acknowledged the vulnerability that comes from being too dependent on foreign oil. Delores
Etter,Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, said in recent
congressional testimony, "[We] take seriously the strategic implications of increased fossil
fuel independence." The Navy's use of nuclear propulsion for submarines and aircraft
carriers already saves 11 million barrels of oil annually. Using nuclear propulsion for all
future major surface combatants will make the Navy more energy independent.
Survivability. U.S. forces are becoming more vulnerable as other nations become more
technologically and tactically sophisticated. Expanding America's nuclear navy is critical to
staying a step ahead of the enemy. A nuclear ship has no exhaust stack, decreasing its
visibility to enemy detection; it requires no fuel supply line, assuring its ability to maneuver
over long distances; and it produces large amounts of electricity, allowing it to power massive
radars and new hi-tech weaponry. Force Enhancement. Though effective, modern aircraft
carriers still depend on less capable fossil-fueled counterparts in the battle group.
Increasing the number of nuclear surface ships would increase the capability of U.S. naval
forces to operate both independently and as part of a battle-group. Superiority on the Seas.
Policymakers have taken for granted the United States' superiority on the seas for many
years. This has led to a decline in America's overall naval force structure and opened the
door for foreign navies to potentially control critical blue-water regions. Expanding the
nuclear navy will allow the United States to maintain its maritime superiority well into the 21st
century. Environmentally Clean Source of Energy. Congress is considering placing CO2
restrictions on all federal government activities, including the Pentagon's. This mandate would be
highly detrimental to the armed forces. More people are starting to realize the oftenoverlooked environmental benefits of a nuclear navy. Expanding nuclear power would help
to achieve many of the objectives of a CO2 mandate in addition to increasing America's
military capability. Unlike a conventionally powered ship, which emits carbon dioxide and
other pollutants into the atmosphere, a nuclear ship is largely emissions-free. America's Nuclear
Shipbuilding Industrial Base Some have erroneously argued that America's industrial base is
inadequate to support a nuclear cruiser. Additional nuclear shipbuilding can not only be
absorbed by the current industrial base but also will allow it to work more efficiently. That
said, Congress could consider the option of expanding the infrastructure at a later date by
licensing additional nuclear production facilities and shipyards should further expansion be
necessary. America's shipyards are not operating at full capacity. Depending on the vendor,
product, and service, the industrial base is currently operating at an average capacity of
approximately 65 percent. Additionally, Navy leaders have testified that without further
investments, their training infrastructure is adequate to handle the influx of additional
personnel necessary to support an expansion of nuclear power. Construction of additional
ships would not be limited to the nuclear shipbuilding yards. Modules could be produced
throughout the country and assembled at nuclear-certified yards. Another alternative might be to
build the ship in a non-nuclear yard and then transport it to a nuclear yard where the reactor can
be installed. The work would be spread throughout the aircraft carrier and submarine industrial
bases. Today, the aircraft carrier industrial base consists of more than 2,000 companies in 47
states. Likewise, the submarine industrial base consists of more than 4,000 companies in 47
states.
SMRs 2AC AT: Prolif/Accidents

Correcting Misperceptions About Nuclear Propulsion
Despite multiple official studies and numerous hours of congressional testimony, specific
misunderstandings continue to persist about nuclear propulsion. The following facts address
these misperceptions: Nuclear propulsion is not an indication of nuclear weapons. According
to Ron O'Rourke, an analyst for the Congressional Research Service, "A military ship's use of
nuclear power is not an indication of whether it carries nuclear weapons--a nuclearpowered military ship can lack nuclear weapons, and a conventionally powered military ship
can be armed with nuclear weapons." A shipyard does not have to be nuclear-certified to
contribute to nuclear ship construction. According to Vice Admiral Sullivan, "[You could]
build modules of this ship in different yards and put it together in a nuclear-certified yard...,
and we do that today with the Virginia Class." Today, approximately 6,000 companies in 47 states
contribute to nuclear shipbuilding. The United States has ample experience in nuclear
shipbuilding. The United States has built and operated nine nuclear-powered cruisers, 10
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and nearly 200 nuclear-powered submarines. The Navy's
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has trained more than 100,000 officers and technicians.
Nuclear power is safe. The Navy operates 103 reactor plants in 81 nuclear-powered ships, the
NR-1 submarine, and four training and test reactors. Over more than half a century, the Navy
has operated for over 5,800 reactor years and steamed over 136 million miles without
accident or radioactive release. Foreign countries welcome America's nuclear ships into
their ports. U.S. nuclear-powered ships are welcomed into more than 150 ports in more than
50 countries. Other countries have nuclear navies. Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and
France all maintain nuclear ships. Other countries, such as India, are seeking the capability.
SMRs Desalination Solvency

Mark Campagna and Otis Peterson, November 2010, Mark, Assistant Technical
Program Chair @ the American Nuclear Society, Otis, Ph.D. @ University of Illinois-Urbana
Champaign, Chief Technical Officer at IX Power, NON-ELECTRIC APPLICATIONS FOR
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS, American Nuclear Society, http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library
%5CAlternative%20Uses/2010%20-%20Non-Electric%20Applications%20for%20SMRs.pdf
1. LOW QUALITY POWER (ABOUT 100C) APPLICATIONS
At the low end of the energy quality spectrum are applications that only need temperatures
slightly above 100C. There are too many applications in this class to discuss in depth. The most
obvious such application is building heat for domestic, commercial and industrial uses. One of
the most important applications within this class is desalination of sea or other brackish
water for human or agricultural uses. Such desalination processes would be based on
distillation or related methods. Essentially all reactors can generate such temperatures. The
temptation here is to use the heat produced by the reactor to generate electricity first and design
the turbine generator system so the exiting steam is above 100C. Such designs reduce the
efficiency of the electrical power conversion process but, obviously, permitmultiple usesfor
the reactor power. As pointed out above, one of the major non-electrical applications of small
reactors is the desalination of ocean water for human or agricultural consumption. There are two
commonplace techniques for producing fresh water from salt water. One of those is reverseosmosis, a process that uses electricity to drive the high-pressure water pumps to force seawater
or brine through very fine filters. This process is popular for supplying drinking water for
limited volume human consumption. Because electrical generation is inherently less
efficient, larger process volume installations are often based on distillation principles. MultiStage Flash evaporation (MSF) thermal and Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane processes produce
about 85% of the fresh water generated by all desalination methods. However, the MSF
represents more than 84% of thermal process production, while RO represents more than 88% of
membrane process production. Distillation only needs low quality heat, which may be available
as a primary output of reactors or available as a component of co-generation of electricity and the
fresh water. Counter-flow geometries where the incoming cool ocean water condenses the
fresh-water steam and also cools all exiting water are quite efficient as the only heat losses
are imperfect insulation, auxiliary uses of some of the steam and inefficiencies in the heat
exchangers. The steam requirements for the MSF distillation process include low-pressure steam
for the brine heating and high-pressure steam for the steam-jet air ejector system to pull the
vacuum needed for deaeration. The low-pressure steam to the brine heater can be as low as 35
psig saturated, while the high-pressure steam to the steam-jet, air ejector can be as low as 150
psig. All distillation processes make use of the physical fact that when water is heated in a vessel
where the pressure is equal to its vapor pressure, the water will boil and vapor will be produced.
Boiling can occur at any seawater temperature depending on whether the vessel is pressurized or
under vacuum. MSF process makes use of the fact that water boils at lower and lower
temperatures as the pressure is reduced. A MSF desalination facility has a total of 24 to 30
stages arranged monotonically in order of the temperature and pressure. In each stage the water
and steam are in saturated equilibrium. The raw seawater enters the cold end of the cascade to
cool the steam condensers and the exiting water.A portion of the raw seawater is withdrawn and
deaerated before being heated to 230F (110C) for injection into the hot end of the cascade. The
amount of fresh water produced is only a small fraction of the seawater that passes through the
cascade. Most of the raw seawater that feeds the evaporator reject stages for cooling is returned to
the sea at elevated temperature. Also, a fraction of the brine in NOVEMBER 2010 4 DRAFT
Non-Electric Applications for Small Modular Reactors the last stage is returned to the sea with
elevated salt content as waste to control the concentration ratio. The increase in salt concentration
from the evaporation is not allowed to go over 1.5 to limit corrosion. A practical and optimized
MSF installation is much more complicated than this description. The cascade is divided into
two sections: heat recovery and heat rejection systems. There are separate components for
heating the brine and deaerating it. The seawater is chemically treated to limit corrosion
and scale formation, in addition to tube fouling. In order to minimize corrosion, the
physical components are constructed of combinations of titanium and copper-nickel alloys
for the condenser tubing and copper-nickel or stainless steel clad or lining for the
evaporator shell. Operating commercial facilities designed on these principles exhibit a
performance ratio, defined as a pound of product per 1,000 BTUs, between 8 and 9 (3.9
liters/MJ). The amount of energy used to produce a quantity of fresh-water is about one
tenth of what is required to boil that same amount of water. This order of magnitude
reduction in energy usage is a tribute to creative and careful engineering.
SMRs Competitiveness Solvency

Benjamin S. Haas March 2014, SUNY Maritime, Strategies for the Success of Nuclear
Powered Commercial Shipping, Presentation to the Connecticut Maritime Association,
http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/CMA-Nuclear-Paper_Benjamin-Haas-3.pdf
Nuclear powered vessels have inherently lower operating costs compared to conventional
vessels. The United States cannot build a conventionally powered ship that is cheaper than one
built in a foreign shipyard because there is no operating cost advantage for the U.S.-built ship.
There is, however , a significant operating cost advantage to nuclear power, which may be
enough to make American shipyards competitive. There are several areas where the U.S.
could gain the upper hand in the development of nuclear powered commercial vessels, which
no other countries at present seem to be pursuing at all. They are: Construction of marine
reactors, Refueling and maintenance of nuclear powered ships, Manning and training of
nuclear merchant ship crews, and Construction of nuclear powered commercial ships. The
first two areas will always require detail and expertise and are activities that cannot be
offshored for cheaper labor. The United States current experience with the refueling of
nuclear reactors in shipyards will allow U.S. shipyards to gain the productivity they need to
reduce their costs and achieve competitiveness in that area. The latter potential, that of
building nuclear powered commercial ships in U.S. shipyards, requires further elaboration. The
reason for Americas uncompetitive, surprisingly overpriced shipbuilding costs compared to
foreign shipyards is not just higher labor and materials costs (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2011). It is a combination of lack of productivity and inefficiencies in the corporate and labor
structures (Hansen M., 2012). In some cases, the maintaining of high overheads to acquire
complex naval contracts may also negatively affect certain shipyards abilities to perform
commercial work. 11 Nuclear powered ships could potentially be built in U.S. shipyards and
carry the U.S. flag because their operating costs are inherently lower compared to fossil
fueled vessels. Along with this, there is an environmental advantage associated with nuclear
power in the arctic for which a premium could be paid. By making the most of these cost
advantages, a series of nuclear powered ships could be designed and built in order to give
American shipyards enough orders to increase their productivity and reduce their costs,
allowing subsequent nuclear powered vessels, ranging from bulk carriers to container ships,
to be even more competitive against their foreign counterparts.
SMRs Shipping Solvency Arctic shipping is inevitable,

but absent the plan, ships cause polar icecap melting and
positive feedback cycles.
What Nuclear Power Offers the Shipping Industry The cost of nuclear fuel is low and stable,
which means speed is not an economic limitation for nuclear powered ships. While slowsteaming for fossil-fueled ships can reduce costs for the ship owners through lower fuel
consumption, the benefits are not necessarily felt by cargo owners unless those lower fuel costs
translate into lower freight rates. While time sensitive cargo does not go on ships, there is a
certain benefit to getting cargo to the buyers as quickly as possible. Nuclear power can
achieve these higher speeds for much lower costs than fossil-fueled powered vessels. Based
on the low cost of fuel, the economics of nuclear powered ships will tend towards higher
speeds such as 20 knots for bulk carriers, or 30 knots for container ships. Slow steaming is a
strategy that evolved relatively recently to lower fuel costs and absorb excess capacity by
reducing the number of vessels available at any given time as they are locked up in longer transit
times (Jorgensen, 2013). It is not necessarily ideal for the containerized cargo market (Kloch,
2013). 4 Future environmental regulations concerning fossil fuel emissions place constraints
on the types of fuels vessels can burn, raising costs through limited availability (Lloyd's, 2012).
Nuclear reactors do not produce these emissions and do not have the same limitations on fuel
supply. While radioactive wastes are produced, these are contained within the reactors and
are not released into the environment. Nuclear powers most significant environmental
advantages is that it will allow for total compliance to atmospheric emissions regulations, and
will allow for environmentally responsible transarctic shipping. Trans-Arctic Shipping The
steady decline of polar sea ice over the last few decades has led to predictions that the North
Polar regions will be open to regular marine traffic by at least the middle of the century
(sooner if specially constructed ice-breaking vessels are built). This has generated a lot of
excitement in maritime industry circles as it provides shorter distances compared to current
trade routes, alternatives to the Panama and Suez canals, and represents a new frontier for
exploration and development. However, there are challenges and environmental aspects that must
be considered. The production of soot from oil and gas burning engines will be caught in the
circumpolar winds of the Arctic atmosphere and eventually be deposited on the snow and
ice (Femenia, 2008). Research has shown that seemingly miniscule amounts of soot can
increase the heat retention of snow and ice, leading to increased melting (Hansen &
Nazarenko, 2003). This is an issue independent from CO2 emissions. Ice loss in the arctic is
prone to being a positive feedback loop where as more ice is loss, the region warms up due
to the increase in absorbed sunlight, which results in more ice loss and the situation is
worsened (Hansen & Nazarenko, 2003). The presence of hundreds, if not thousands of
hydrocarbon burning vessels in the Arctic region would lead to substantial ice loss
independent from concerns regarding anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Arctic Marine Shipping
Assessment, 2009) 5 The use of natural gas is not a silver bullet for this issue because the
lubricating oil in the cylinders of diesel engines will be burned and also produce soot
(Femenia, 2008). It does not take a lot of soot to increase the heat retention of ice. Nuclear
power is the only way to avoid this potential environmental damage while still remaining
economical. Another aspect of utilizing nuclear power for transarctic vessels is the
disproportionately lower fuel cost of nuclear fuel compared to liquefied natural gas and fuel
oil, allowing for higher powers and operating speeds. There is a considerable amount of extra
power needed to break through several feet of ice. Because the transarctic ships will be
susceptible to bad weather that can delay their voyages, higher open-ocean speeds will be
needed to make up the lost time. Nuclear power can achieve these speeds much more cheaply
due to its lower fuel costs.
Us k/
According to a recent study done by MARAD in 2013 on the impact of Americas shipbuilding
and repair industry on the U.S. economy (the author will simply use the term shipbuilding
industry), each direct job creates 2.7 other jobs indirectly in other parts of the U.S. economy
(MARAD, 2013). While the Gross Domestic Product of Americas shipbuilding industry is small
compared to the national overall, it does employ a considerable amount of people for its size.
U.S. shipbuilding and repair employs over 400,000 workers directly and indirectly, and the
average income of a shipbuilding industry worker was $73,630 in 2011, which is 45 percent
higher than the national average (MARAD 2013).
Nuclear power is a potential way for the United States to expand its shipbuilding industry beyond
reliance on Jones Act and Naval contracts. The foreign revenue generated from providing services
for nuclear powered ships could be considerable once their place in the world market becomes
widespread.
Not all segments of the U.S. shipbuilding industry are suitable for nuclear propulsion, but there
would be a clear benefit to the various shipbuilding States economies for U.S. involvement in
nuclear powered shipping, whether it is in building and repairing the nuclear powered ships,
providing training services for operators, or building the marine reactors.
Building the Reactors
In order to reduce quality control costs and ensure efficient factory production, only countries
with an experienced nuclear regulatory agency and nuclear manufacturing base should construct
and install marine reactors. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considered to be the
gold standard for nuclear regulations and so it follows that the manufacture and installation of
marine reactors should take place in the
41
United States (Harding, 2012). Such an arrangement is possible if the reactor is designed and
tested in the United States.
SMRs Shipping Solvency

G. Sawyer et. al., 2008, G. Sawyer, J. Shirley, J. Stroud & E. Bartlett, General
Management Partners, LLC, USA, G. A. Sawyer is a founding partner of J.F. Lehman &
Company and since January 2004 serves as Executive Advisor to J.F. Lehman & Company,
graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University and Completed graduate studies in nuclear
engineering at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories, ANALYSIS OF HIGH-SPEED TRANSPACIFIC NUCLEAR CONTAINERSHIP SERVICE,
As mentioned above, the economic comparison between diesel and nuclear fleets is strongly
dependent upon diesel fuel price. If we assume that over time the cost of fossil fuels will
continue to increase, the fuel surcharges already widely applied by ship owners worldwide
will continue to increase top line revenue for both fleets of ships. However , since the
nuclear ship will incur very little additional fuel related expense its bottom line will improve
significantly and narrow the predicted NPV gap. Based upon the cost criteria developed above
and modeled econometrically by Manalytics and GMP, it is estimated that on the basis of oil
pricing alone the nuclear service could be economically equivalent to the conventional
service with future bunker fuel prices of $455 per metric ton (or $89 per bbl) and MDO prices of
$890 per metric ton, along with the requirement to burn MDO within 40 miles of shore. This
results in a net blended fuel price of $585.50 as compared to the $455/tonne used initially. See
Figure 10 below. As was noted several times in previous sections, there are other forces at
work beyond market supply and demand contributing to the price of marine fuels.
California is already regulating large ships and the burning of residual fuels due to gas
emission (NOx and SOx) and has enacted legislation to require ships to burn cleaner Marine
Diesel Oil (MDO) low in sulphur content within 20 nautical miles of its coastline and by 2008
this requirement will be extended to 40 nautical miles. Should bunker fuels be prohibited
entirely in the future, the result would have a dramatic effect on fuel costs. In this case of a
complete ban on bunker fuels, fuel costs would double overnight making the nuclear
containership service economically superior immediately with a NPV of $780 million compared
to $259 million for the conventional service. Further, current cost analyses do not make any
provision for the cost of climate change . This is a new subject and is not uniformly
implemented. The authors have seen discussions that suggest that the dollarized cost of
carbon emissions lies in the neighborhood of US$100 / tonne- CO2. (We have seen figures
ranging from US$50 to US$250/t.) Based on $100/t, this means that the cost of burning one
barrel of petroleum should be increased by about US$40, to account for the cost of the
carbon impact. Some jurisdictions are talking about handling this explicitly, in the form of a
carbon tax. In other jurisdictions it is being ignored. If this cost were indeed applied to the cost of
petroleum, then it would mean that oil is today trading at about US$100+40 = $140/bbl well
above the break even point for the nuclear alternative. We believe that the above analysis is
realistic and conservative . This analysis shows that the commercial nuclear containership is
both technically and economically feasible. As oil becomes more expensive, it seems
inevitable that nuclear power will become competitive for commercial marine propulsion
initially for very large, fast ships as described here and subsequently for medium-size ships
of moderate speed. This conclusion does hinge upon the assumption that the major nonrecurring costs and economic risks involved in re-starting a commercial nuclear ship
program would be absorbed by the U.S. Government and that such an express service is
deemed to have commercial merit by the industry. Further, we believe that this application
has potential national security benefits as well since any one of the vessels in this fleet could
provide emergency electrical power to a significant fraction of a citys demand grid and
certainly to the industrial complex surrounding one of our major ports. Further study of
alternatives may well improve on the economic results depictedfor example: Extending core
lifetimes and refueling intervals to 7 years vs. the 5 years of the reference design, as deemed
appropriate by several nuclear experts who have read the full report from which this paper has
been excerpted, Investigating the economic feasibility in enlarging the reference design ship to
12,000 TEU capacity vs. 9,200; (There is no inherent technical issue associated in such an
enlargement). Examining the economic potential and comparative fleet sizing of a possible
extended express service to the East Coast of the United States; Studying the potential
economics involved should one of the carbon tax or trade concepts now being explored for CO2
abatement become a matter of law or regulation. In summary, a large, fast commercial nuclear
ship is technically feasible today using proven PWR technology that is both currently available
and in wide service. The principal issue that now confronts the authors and sponsors of this
study is not to engage in further paper studies per se, but to find an appropriate sponsor in
industry and a capable, motivated agency within Government who together are willing to
provide leadership and funding to get on with the hard work of preliminary design of such a
vessel and develop the engineering details necessary to permit serious investigation by cognizant
regulatory agencies within Government and Class. We estimate that such an effort would entail
about two years of effort and cost approximately US$5 Million. Its scope would include the
ship and propulsion systems design itself, appropriate review and analysis by Class, evaluation of
the alternatives affecting principal characteristics of the vessel and service as described above, a
budgetary estimate of both non-recurring and recurring costs, and submission of an engineered
product in sufficient detail to permit a preliminary review by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
SMRs Leadership Solvency - Federal investment is key to

promote US clean energy leadership and cresate a viable
alternative to coal-based production.
Merv Fertel, 4/08/2014, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy
Institute, vice president of technical programs at the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, Why
DOE Should Back SMR Development, http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-doeshould-back-smr-development.html
Nuclear energy is an essential source of base-load electricity and 64 percent of the United
States greenhouse gas-free electricity production. Without it, the United States cannot meet
either its energy requirements or the goals established in the Presidents Climate Action Plan. In
the decades to come, we predict that the countrys nuclear fleet will evolve to include not only
large, advanced light water reactors like those operating today and under construction in
Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, but also a complementary set of smaller, modular
reactors. Those reactors are under development today by companies like Babcock &Wilcox
(B&W), NuScale and others that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop nextgeneration reactor concepts. Those companies have innovative designs and are prepared to
absorb the lions share of design and development costs, but the federal government should
also play a significant role given the enormous promise of small modular reactor technology
for commercial and other purposes. Most important, partnerships between government and
the private sector will enable the full promise of this technology to be available in time to
ensure U.S. leadership in energy, the environment, and the global nuclear market. The
Department of Energys Small Modular Reactor (SMR) program is built on the successful
Nuclear Power 2010 program that supported design certification of the Westinghouse AP-1000
and General Electric ESBWR designs. Today, Southern Co. and South Carolina Electric & Gas
are building four AP-1000s for which they submitted license applications to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in 1998. Ten years earlier, in the early years of the Nuclear Power 2010
program, it was clear that there would be a market for the AP-1000 and ESBWR in the United
States and overseas, but it would have been impossible to predict which companies would
build the first ones, or where they would be built, and it was even more difficult to predict
the robust international market for that technology. The SMR program is off to a
promising start. To date, B&Ws Generation mPower joint venture has invested $400 million in
developing its mPower design; NuScale approximately $200 million in its design. Those
companies have made those investments knowing they will not see revenue for approximately 10
years. That is laudable for a private company, but, in order to prepare SMRs for early
deployment in the United States and to ensure U.S. leadership worldwide, investment by
the federal government as a cost-sharing partner is both necessary and prudent. Some have
expressed concern about the potential market and customers for SMR technology given Babcock
& Wilcoxs recent announcement that it will reduce its level of investment in the mPower
technology, and thus the pace of development. This decision reflects B&Ws revised market
assessment, particularly the slower-than-expected growth in electricity demand in the United
States following the recession. But that demand will eventually occur, and the American
people are best-served in terms of cost and reliability of service when the electric power
industry maintains a diverse portfolio of electricity generating technologies. The industry
will need new, low-carbon electricity options like SMRs because Americas electric
generating technology options are becoming more challenging. For example: While coalfired generation is a significant part of our base-load generation, coal-fired generation faces
increasing environmental restrictions, including the likelihood of controls on carbon and
uncertainty over the commercial feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration. The U.S.
has about 300,000 MW of coal-fired capacity, and the consensus is that about one-fifth of that
will shut down by 2020 because of environmental requirements. In addition, development of
coal-fired projects has stalled: Less than 1,000 megawatts of new coal-fired capacity is under
construction. Natural gas-fired generation is a growing and important component of our
generation portfolio and will continue to do so given our abundant natural gas resources.
However, prudence requires that we do not become overly dependent on any given energy
source particularly in order to maintain long-term stable pricing as natural gas demand grows in
the industrial sector and for LNG exports. Renewables will play an increasingly large role but, as
intermittent sources, cannot displace the need for large-scale, 24/7 power options. Given this
challenging environment, the electric industry needs as many electric generating options as
possible, particularly zero-carbon options. Even at less-than-one-percent annual growth in
electricity demand, the Energy Information Administration forecasts a need for 28 percent more
power by 2040. Thats the equivalent of 300 one-thousand-megawatt power plants. Americas
100 nuclear plants will begin to reach 60 years of operation toward the end of the next
decade. In the five years between 2029 and 2034, over 29,000 megawatts of nuclear generating
capacity will reach 60 years. Unless those licenses are extended for a second 20-year period, that
capacity must be replaced. If the United States hopes to contain carbon emissions from the
electric sector, it must be replaced with new nuclear capacity. The runway to replace that
capacity is approximately 10 years long, so decisions to replace that capacity with either large,
advanced light-water reactors or SMRs must be taken starting in 2019 and 2020 approximately
the time that the first SMR designs should be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The electricity markets are in a period of profound change. New energy sources are
becoming available, new fossil, renewable, demand-side and nuclear technologies are
preparing to enter the market. The very structure of the markets themselves is changing.
Nuclear energy, because it runs 24/7 without producing greenhouse gas, will play an important
part in that market. SMR technology, in particular, needs to be developed sooner rather
than later. That way, in about 10 years, we can answer the questions about which companies will
build those plants and where.
SMRs Energy Leadership Solvency - And, theyre key to

the nuclear industry and US leadership post-Fukishima,
but federal investment is a critical first step
Kent Harrington, 1/5/2012, Producer at American Institute for Chemical Engineers,
citing study from University of Chicago, Study Finds Small Modular Reactors Could Revive US
Nuclear Industry, American Institute for Chemical Engineers,
http://chenected.aiche.org/energy/study-finds-small-modular-reactors-could-revive-us-nuclearindustry/
The sudden Fukushima nuclear catastrophe has had an enormous impact on the global nuclear
industry. Japans continuing human, environmental, and economic disaster appeared to cause
the touted 2011 US nuclear renaissance, backed by loan guarantees from the Obama
Administration, to grind to a halt. And then watching Germany, followed by Switzerland, vow to
switch to renewables, the future for US nuclear energy looked pretty darkturn the lights off
on the way out, so to speak. A contrarian nuclear future Now, a newly released study from the
Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago finds that small modular reactors
(SMR) may hold the key to an actual renaissance of U.S. nuclear power (read whole study):
Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the
United States, concluded the study, led by Robert Rosner, director of the Energy Policy Institute
at the University of Chicago. Through his work as the former director of Argonne National
Laboratory, Rosner became involved in nuclear and renewable energy technology development.
It would be a huge stimulus for high-value job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear
reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima
world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste.
This represents a huge shift from last centurys large-reactor build-out, which eventually
petered out and stagnated. Before construction stopped, new reactors had grown larger and
larger as utilities tried to reduce costs through economies of scale. But now the trend may be
toward what SMR proponents call economies of small scale. Creating value through
standardized, mass produced, small modular reactors. Energy Secretary Steven Chu agrees:
Voting with their balance sheets This trend had already begun before the Fukushima disaster. A
couple of salient examples from 2010: rising reactor costs had already created friction between
partners CPS Energy and NRG Energy Inc., who had sued each other when CPS, a city-owned
utility in San Antonio balked about investing in a new nuclear plant that would raise customers
rates. Then, as if the industrys nuclear renaissance wasnt already gasping for air, it swooned
into a coma after the collapse of Constellation Energys plan to build a third reactor on
Marylands Chesapeake Bay with French utility EDF. mPower SMR But while those large
reactor projects were falling apart, the small modular reactor trend was beginning to take
shape. The Texas-sized Fluor Corporation, which had built large reactors in the 70s and 80s,
spent $3.5 million for the majority stake in small module reactor builder NuScale. Then Bechtel,
another engineering giant, formed an alliance with Babcock & Wilcox, buying into its innovative
modular nuclear technology called mPower. Both investments were big votes of confidence.
Comparing large and small reactors The SMR report, funded by the DOE and authored by
Rosner and Stephen Goldberg, was rolled out on Dec. 1, at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. CSIS president and CEO John Hamre started off the press conference by
reconfirming that economic issues have hindered the construction of new large-scale
reactors in the United States. You can watch the long version of the press conference video
below: The chief competitor The report assessed the economic feasibility of classical,
gigawatt-scale reactors and the possible new generation of modular reactors. The latter
would have a generating capacity of 600 megawatts or less, would be factory-built as
modular components, and then shipped to their desired location for assembly. According to
the study, few companies can afford the long wait to see a return on a $10 billion investment
on a large-scale nuclear plant. This is a real problem, but the epoch of the small modular
reactor offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies with a much shorter timeline.
The report also finds that natural gas will be the chief competitor of nuclear power generated
by small modular reactors, but predicting the future of the energy market a decade from now
is a risky proposition, (implying that prices could easily go higher) Rosner said. Were talking
about natural-gas prices not today but 10, 15 years from now when these kinds of reactors could
actually hit the market. Markets that cant use gigawatt-scale plants The economic viability of
small modular reactors will depend partly on how quickly manufacturers can learn to build
them. The faster you learn, the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point
where you actually start making money faster, Rosner noted. Of course, this assumes that SMRs
are all factory built and delivered to the reactor site by rail or truck. Then on-site construction
would never be able to compete. Graphic: Hauling NuScale 45 MWe Small Modular Reactor
Small modular reactors would appeal to any market that couldnt accommodate gigawattscale plants (particularly developing countries with smaller or older grids), or those in the
US currently served by aging, 200- to 400-megawatt coal plants, which are likely to be phased
out during the next decade, Rosner said. An unknown factor that will affect the future of these
plants would be the terms of any new clean-air regulations that might be enacted in the next year.
An important safety aspect of small modular reactors is that they are designed to eliminate
the need for human intervention during an emergency. In some of the designs, Rosner
explained, the entire heat load at full power can be carried passively by thermal convection.
Theres no need for pumps. Getting the first modular reactors built will probably require
the federal government to step in as the first customer. That is a policy issue, though, that
awaits further consideration. Its a case that has to be argued out and thought carefully about,
Rosner said. Theres a long distance between what were doing right now and actually
implementing national policy.
SMRs Leadership Inherency - US nuclear leadership is

diminishing quickly expanding fossil fuels, market forces
and international perception are key.
Wallace et. al., 2013, Michael Wallace holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from
Marquette University and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, member of the National
Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), which advises the president on matters related to
homeland security, John Kotek, Sarah Williams, Paul Nadeau, Thomas Hundertmark, George
David Banks, Restoring U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Energy, CSIS,
http://csis.org/files/publication/130614_RestoringUSLeadershipNuclearEnergy_WEB.pdf
Americas nuclear energy industry is in decline. Low natural gas prices, financing hurdles,
failure to find a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, reactions to the
Fukushima accident in Japan, and other factors are hastening the day when existing U.S.
reactors become uneconomic, while making it increasingly difficult to build new ones. Two
generations after the United States took this wholly new and highly sophisticated technology from laboratory experiment to successful
commercialization, our nation is in danger of losing an industry of unique strategic importance
and unique promise for addressing the environmental and energy security demands of the
future. The decline of the U.S. nuclear energy industry could be much more rapid than
policymakers and stakeholders anticipate. With 102 operating reactors and the worlds
largest base of installed nuclear capacity, it has been widely assumed that the United States
even without building many new plantswould continue to have a large presence in this
industry for decades to come. Instead, current market conditions are such that growing numbers
of units face unprecedented financial pressures and could be retired early. Early retirements, coupled
with scheduled license expirations and dim prospects for new construction, point to diminishing domestic opportunities for U.S.
nuclear energy firms. The outlook is much different in China, India, Russia, and other countries,
where governments are looking to significantly expand their nuclear energy commitments .
Dozens of new entrants plan ix on adding nuclear technology to their generating mix, furthering the spread of nuclear materials
and know-how around the globe. It is in our nations best interest that U.S. companies meet a significant share of this demand for
nuclear technologynot simply because of trade and employment benefits, but because exports of U.S.-origin technology and
materials are accompanied by conditions that protect our nonproliferation interests. Yet U .S. firms are currently at a
competitive disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive

export policies. U.S. efforts to facilitate peaceful uses of nuclear technology helped build a
global nuclear energy infrastructurebut that infrastructure could soon be dominated by
countries with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial presence in new nuclear
markets, Americas ability to influence nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors
worldwide is bound to diminish. In this context, federal action to reverse the U.S. nuclear
industrys impending decline is a national security imperative. The United States cannot afford to
become irrelevant in a new nuclear age. This brief outlines why.
SMRs Leadership IL - Thats key to solve prolif

From the start of the nuclear era until the 1980s, the United States was the dominant global supplier of commercial nuclear energy
technology. American leadership was instrumental in shaping the global nuclear
nonproliferation regime and nuclear safety norms. A strong domestic nuclear program and
supportive government policies helped sustain this dominant position. Today, the United States
continues to exercise influence by virtue of its economic power and recognized expertise in
facility operations, safety, and security. But our nations ability to promote nonproliferation
and other national security objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation has
diminished. An important source of U.S. leverage in the past was the ability to provide
reliable nuclear technologies, fuel, and services to countries under strict nonproliferation
controls and conditions. These controls and conditions go beyond provisions in the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and include nine criteria that the United States applies to any agreement
with a nonnuclear weapon state: for example, a guarantee that the recipient state will not enrich or
reprocess transferred nuclear material without U.S. approval. x Today, much of the worlds
nuclear manufacturing and supply capability still relies on designs and technologies
developed in the United States. But the firms involved are largely foreign- owned. Even in the market for conventional
lightwater reactors, where the United States led the world for decades, all but one of the U.S.-based designers and manufacturers
have been acquired by non-U.S.-based competitors. The countries that are currently strengthening their
nuclear capabilities and global market position (i.e., France, Japan, South Korea, and Russia, with China close
behind) have different reasons for pursuing nuclear technologysome are primarily
concerned about energy security or about preserving domestic fossil fuel resources , while
others may be motivated by a mix of nationalistic and geopolitical considerations. But in all
cases they see nuclear technology as offering long-term benefits that justify a significant near-term sovereign investment, even faced
with the prospect that world natural gas prices may fall if the unconventional gas production technologies in use in the United States
are successfully applied in other parts of the world. The most aggressive of these new national nuclear programs is underway in
China. By 2020, China could have 50 commercial reactors in operation, compared with only 3 in 2000. India could add 7 new plants
and Russia, 10in the next five years. These trends are expected to accelerate out to 2030, by which time China, India, and Russia
could account for nearly 40 percent of global nuclear generating capacity. Meanwhile, many smaller
nationsmostly in
Asia and the Middle Eastare planning to get into the nuclear energy business for the first
time. In all, as many as 15 new nations could have nuclear generating capacity within the next two decades, added to the more than
30 countries that have it today or have had it in the past. The national security concern is that much of this
new interest in nuclear power is coming from countries and regions that may not share
Americas interests and priorities in the areas of nonproliferation and global security . And
our leverage to influence their nuclear programs will be weak at best if U.S. companies
cannot offer the technologies, services, and expertise these countries need to operate a
successful nuclear program (including not only reactors, but other fuel-cycle facilities). Expanded nuclear
electricity generation outside the United States will drive a commensurate increase in the
demand for enriched uranium. The facilities needed to supply this demand xi because
they can be used to produce both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons-usable materialare of
particular national security concern. During the 1960s, the U.S. operated the only uranium enrichment facility
wholly dedicated to producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) for commercial purposes. Today, the single U.S.-based enrichment
company, USEC, accounts for less than 20 percent of global LEU production capacity. USEC recently announced the shutdown of
uranium enrichment at its only operating plant in Paducah, Kentucky, which was viewed as being outdated and too inefficient to be
competitive with foreign suppliers. In fact, much of the fuel used in U.S. reactors today is fabricated from imported enriched uranium
obtained by USEC under a very successful agreement with the Russian government to supply down-blended highly enriched uranium,
a contract that expires in 2013. Although USEC plans to replace the aging Paducah plant with a more advanced facility, prospects for
following through on this plan are far from certain. Meanwhile, the European uranium enrichment company (Urenco) is expanding its
market share worldwide with several new facilities planned or under construction in Europe and the United States. In addition, Russia
is taking steps to modernize its enrichment services capability. All told, the U.S. share of global exports for enriched
uranium and other sensitive nuclear materials declined from approximately 29 percent in
1994 to 10 percent in 2008.
SMRs Leadership IL - An SMR lead revival of the industry

restores US nuclear leadership which controls
proliferation risks
Loudermilk, Senior Energy Associate @ NDU, 11Micah J. Loudermilk, Senior
Associate for the Energy %26 Environmental Security Policy program with The Institute for
National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, "Small Nuclear Reactors and US
Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and Costs," Journal of Energy Security, May 2011,
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content%26view=article%26id=314:small-nuclearreactors-and-us-energy-security-concepts-capabilities-and-costs
%26catid=116:content0411%26Itemid=375Combating proliferation with US leadership Reactor safety itself notwithstanding, many
argue that the scattering of small reactors around the world would invariably lead to
increased proliferation problems as nuclear technology and know-how disseminates around
the world. Lost in the argument is the fact that this stance assumes that US decisions on
advancing nuclear technology color the world as a whole. In reality, regardless of the US
commitment to or abandonment of nuclear energy technology, many countries (notably
China) are blazing ahead with research and construction, with 55 plants currently under
construction around the worldthough Fukushima may cause a temporary lull. Since Three
Mile Island, the US share of the global nuclear energy trade has declined precipitously as
talent and technology begin to concentrate in countries more committed to nuclear power.
On the small reactor front, more than 20 countries are examining the technology and the IAEA
estimates that 40-100 small reactors will be in operation by 2030. Without US leadership, new
nations seek to acquire nuclear technology turn to countries other than the US who may not
share a deep commitment to reactor safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US

leadership globally on nonproliferation requires a vibrant American nuclear industry. This
will enable the US to set and enforce standards on nuclear agreements, spent fuel
reprocessing, and developing reactor technologies. As to the small reactors themselves, the
designs achieve a degree of proliferation-resistance unmatched by large reactors. Small
enough to be fully buried underground in independent silos, the concrete surrounding the
reactor vessels can be layered much thicker than the traditional domes that protect
conventional reactors without collapsing. Coupled with these two levels of superior physical
protection is the traditional security associated with reactors today. Most small reactors also are
factory-sealed with a supply of fuel inside. Instead of refueling reactors onsite, SMRs are
returned to the factory, intact, for removal of spent fuel and refueling. By closing off the fuel
cycle, proliferation risks associated with the nuclear fuel running the reactors are mitigated and
concerns over the widespread distribution of nuclear fuel allayed.
SMRs Leadership IL - SMRs are key to negotiation

pressure for nonproliferation - they are more desirable
than other nuclear systems
Sanders, Associate Director Savannah National Lab, 12 Tom Sanders, Associate
Laboratory Director for Clean Energy Initiatives at the Savannah River National Laboratory,
Department of Energy, Former President of the American Nuclear Society, "Tom Sanders: Great
expectations for small modular reactors," Nuclear News, July 2012, pg. 48-49
Thats a good question. One of the things that concerned me most in the nonproliferation
area was the fact that the United States had lost a lot of its ability to export nuclear goods
and services under U.S. export licenses. Thats important to nonproliferation, because its
through negotiations with other countries export controls of nuclear technology that a lot
of our goals regarding proliferation risk management are met. By that I mean that if youre
not exporting anything, youre not negotiating anything, and youre not really establishing a
standard for safety, ecurity, and proliferation risk management around the world. Then we
evaluated how to regain some of that capability, and small modular reactors became obvious for
two reasons. One is that you could probably speed up the construction and licensing process
by factory manufacturing and turn them out much more quickly than large reactors. And
the other is that for emerging nations, most developing countries could not absorb large
nuclear systems, and smaller systems would be more acceptable to them and more
affordable. They may cost a little more per megawatt, but the capital coststhe upfront costs
would be significantly less. In addition, the economy of scale you possibly get with a large plant
doesnt make any sense if you cant afford it.
SMRs PPP Solvency Private Sector will say yes its

only a question of government commitment.
Regarding US nuclear manufacturing capability, have companies stepped up to say they want to
be part of SMR parts and components development? Absolutely. Weve seen a real interest by a
number of companies that want to be part of these projects. We recently participated in a very
large SMR conference in Colum- bia, S.C., and we had a topical meeting at the last ANS
conference that drew quite a crowd, including a lot of the parts and components industry that
currently exists in the United States and now performs quality nuclear work for the Navy.
Most of those components are still manufactured in this country. So yes, there is a lot of
interest. We are regaining our N Stampquali- fied capabilities because the MOX plant requires all of those standards to be met. The MOX plant is going to be licensed by the NRC,
and as part of that, a lot of supplier capability has been developed in the Unit- ed States that
will also be applied to these small reactors.
Checks war check our math.

For interdependence to promote peace, economic processes must either remove incentives for
states to engage in conflict or reduce the uncertainty states face when bargaining in the shadow of
costly contests. Since removing incentives to act aggressively only increase incentives for
opponents, the former explanation must typically occur in special boundary conditions
(discussed below). We argue that interdependence makes it easier to substitute non-violent
contests for militarized disputes in signaling resolve. States that possess a range of methods of
conflict resolution have less need to resort to the most destructive (and costly) techniques. Liberal
dyads can damage mutually valuable linkages to communicate credibly. States without linkages
must choose between a very limited set of options includingmore oftenwar. The conflict
model with uncertainty shows why this is so. Recall that As best response is an offer that an
opponent weakly prefers to fighting. If the opponent (B) has private information about its war
costs (c), then As optimal offer derives from a rational guess (the distribution of reservation
prices for different types of player B). A calculates its offer as the best demand it can make to
each opponent weighted by the odds that a given type is the actual adversary. Players B whose
war costs are high accept while those with low costs fight. Conventional descriptions of
interdependence see war as less likely because states face additional opportunity costs for
fighting. The problem with such an account is that it ignores incentives to capitalize on an
opponents reticence to fight. If an opponent (B) is reluctant, then state A can make larger
demands without risking war. Assume that interdependent dyads are those that derive some
benefit from economic linkages (h, say h = $10). If A and B avoid a fight, then each receives the
settlement plus the benefit ($100 d + $10 and d + $10, respectively). Bs war costs are again
between $0 and $40. Conventional explanations for interdependence identify the fact that B
receives (d + $10) instead of (d) for accepting As demand as leading to peace. If demands are the
same, then not fighting is more beneficial in interdependent dyads and B should more often prefer
As demand to fighting. Yet, unless we assume that A is ignorant of its own interdependence with
B, (not very plausible), As demand must be different. As best offer is one that B just prefers to a
fight. Since benefits increase under interdependence, A simply demands commensurately more.
In the previous example, A offers $30 (A receives $100 d = $70). If interdependent, A proposes
that B accept $20 plus the benefit ($10). The same range of states B that accepted $30 previously
(since $30 $50 c if c $20) now accepts $20 (since $20 + $10 [the benefit] $50 c if c
$20). State A again makes an offer that a given opponent just prefers to fighting, weighted by the
odds that B is the given opponent. Interdependence is simply subsumed in bargaining. Since they
fail to reduce uncertainty, opportunity costs generally do not alter the prospects of engaging in
costly contests. Economic interdependence can motivate peace in two ways. First, conflict may
occasionally be so expensive relative to the expected value of fighting that states prefer any offer
rather than enduring a contest. Suppose Bs war costs range from $50 to $90. Bs expected value
for war thus ranges from $0 to (- $40). Because B stands to lose more from fighting than its value
for the stakes, it prefers to concede. We refer to this as a boundary solution because it is possible
only by assuming that stakes in the contest are bounded. Bounded stakes is reasonable, especially
when issues are of tertiary importance or when costs are extreme (as in nuclear war).
Interdependent dyads may avoid costly contests if economic linkages decrease the expected value
of competition to the point where one party prefers conceding to competing. Yet, economic
benefits seldom equate in consequence to nuclear war. Issues over which states may consider
major contests are unlikely to meet boundary conditions for interdependence. Instead, boundary
solutions are relevant when liberal states experience relatively minor conflict. Finally,
competition can continue even given boundary conditions. Liberal dyads deterred from war can
still compete by manipulating the risk of contests. Second, instead of deterring conflict,
interdependence can convey credible signals, obviating the need for costly military contests.
Actors behaviors potentially inform observers about the value of strategic variables, dissipating
private information. Interdependent states that endure opportunity costs in pursuit of political
objectives differentiate themselves from other, less resolved, competitors. To the degree that nonviolent conflict allows observers to identify opponents, costly signaling also allows efficient ex
ante bargaining. States seek to obtain settlements while competing for preferable terms. War is
less often necessary when states possess non-violent methods that credibly inform.
SMR 1AC
1AC Global Shipping

Advantage one Global Shipping shipping faces decline
now high prices, demand best reports
Joseph Wilkes 8/12/13, Global shipping industry in danger of
decline,http://www.supplychaindigital.com/logistics/3306/Global-shipping-industry-in-dangerof-decline
A report into the global shipping industry has been released today, warning of decline. Online market research store Research and
Markets has released the Global Shipping Industry 2013 Forecast, Trends and Opportunities, report from Taiyou Research company,
which provides analysis and overview of the entire industry as well as individual elements such as ownership and prices. The report
states that in the coming years, the global shipping industry is expected to decline by five to 10
percent. Oversupply and high bunker oil prices will eventually lead to a constraining of
performance. The report said: A sustained oversupply of vessels combined with high bunker oil prices will
pressure margins in most shipping segments. The dry-bulk and crude oil tanker segments
are likely to have the largest supply-demand gap in 2013, complicating these sectors' ability
to meaningfully improve their earnings. The tanker market has also been affected by the
oversupply of vessels in the near term aided by lower OPEC production levels ; though the
outlook for the product tanker segment is more favorable since demand growth is likely to
outpace supply during 2013, leading freight rates to rise by the end of this year. Box freight rates for the container
segment have rebounded since March this year. However, strong improvement in earnings should not be
expected for the full year in this segment. This reflects sustained high bunker oil costs and pressure on container
rates stemming from recent increases in deployed tonnage of box ships. But Japanese conglomerates could be affected to a lesser
extent by the negative market trends that will damage other global shipping trends. This is due to the scale of the Japanese
conglomerates, their diversification, (including their liquefied natural gas, or LNG, fleets) and strong relationships with customers,
said the report. The report includes analysis of 35 major shipping companies such as AP Moller Maersk,
China COSCO, China Shipping Development, D/S Norden, Golar LNG, Kawasaki Kisen, Hyundai Merchant Marine. AP Moller
Maersk, Nippon Yusen, Kawasaki Kisen, Mitsui OSK Lines, China COSCO and Evergreen Marine are some of the top players in the
industry, the report suggested
Higher shipping costs mean companies will shift to

regionalization prefer long term trends
Larry Rohter, 8/3/2008, awarded the Maria Moors Cabot Prize[1] at Columbia
University, BA @ Columbia, MA @ Georgetown SFS, Shipping Costs Start to Crimp
Globalization, NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/business/worldbusiness/03global.html?
ex=1375588800&en=07156979d7fafd12&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permali
nk&_r=0
Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization When Tesla Motors, a pioneer in electric-powered cars, set out to make a luxury roadster
for the American market, it had the global supply chain in mind. Tesla planned to manufacture 1,000-pound battery packs in Thailand,
ship them to Britain for installation, then bring the mostly assembled cars back to the United States. Elaine Thompson/Associated
Press A MORE REGIONALIZED TRADING WORLD Appliances, like those for sale in a Seattle store, above, are being affected by
sharp increases in transportation costs. Staton R. Winter/Bloomberg News Bread in a New Zealand supermarket. Soaring
transportation costs also have an impact on food, from bananas to salmon. But when it began production this spring, the company
decided to make the batteries and assemble the cars near its home base in California, cutting more than 5,000 miles from the shipping
bill for each vehicle. It was kind of a no-brain decision for us, said Darryl Siry, the companys senior vice president of global sales,
marketing and service. A major reason was to avoid the transportation costs, which are terrible. The world
economy has become so integrated that shoppers find relatively few T-shirts and sneakers in
Wal-Mart and Target carrying a Made in the U.S.A. label. But globalization may be losing
some of the inexorable economic power it had for much of the past quarter-century , even as it
faces fresh challenges as a political ideology. Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation
links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global
supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages . Rising concern
about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food
safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that
political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more
complex. If we think about the Wal-Mart model, it is incredibly fuel-intensive at every stage, and at every one of those stages we
are now seeing an inflation of the costs for boats, trucks, cars, said Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of
Disaster Capitalism. That is necessarily leading to a rethinking of this emissions-intensive
model, whether the increased interest in growing foods locally, producing locally or
shopping locally, and I think thats great. Many economists argue that globalization will
not shift into reverse even if oil prices continue their rising trend . But many see evidence that
companies looking to keep prices low will have to move some production closer to
consumers. Globe-spanning supply chains Brazilian iron ore turned into Chinese steel used to make washing
machines shipped to Long Beach, Calif., and then trucked to appliance stores in Chicago make less sense today than
they did a few years ago. To avoid having to ship all its products from abroad, the Swedish furniture manufacturer Ikea opened
its first factory in the United States in May. Some electronics companies that left Mexico in recent years for the lower wages in China
are now returning to Mexico, because they can lower costs by trucking their output overland to American consumers. Neighborhood
Effect Decisions like those suggest that what some economists call a neighborhood effect
putting factories closer to components suppliers and to consumers, to reduce transportation costs
could grow in importance if oil remains expensive. A barrel sold for $125 on Friday ,
compared with lows of $10 a decade ago. If prices stay at these levels, that could lead to some
significant rearrangement of production, among sectors and countries , said C. Fred Bergsten, author
of The United States and the World Economy and director of the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, in
Washington. You could have a very significant shock to traditional consumption patterns and also some
important growth effects. The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the United States has risen to
$8,000, compared with $3,000 early in the decade, according to a recent study of transportation costs. Big container ships, the pack
mules of the 21st-century economy, have shaved their top speed by nearly 20 percent to save on fuel costs, substantially slowing
shipping times. The study, published in May by the Canadian investment bank CIBC World Markets, calculates that the recent surge
in shipping costs is on average the equivalent of a 9 percent tariff on trade. The cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the
largest barrier to global trade today, the report concluded, and as a result has effectively offset all the trade liberalization efforts of
the last three decades. The spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the
environmental impact of globalization is also growing. Many companies have in recent years shifted
production from countries with greater energy efficiency and more rigorous standards on
carbon emissions, especially in Europe, to those that are more lax, like China and India. Page 2 of 3 (Page 2 of 3) But if the
international community fulfills its pledge to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change, even China
and India would have to reduce the growth of their emissions, and the relative costs of production in
countries that use energy inefficiently could grow. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images A Tesla electric-powered roadster in California. The
spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the environmental impact of globalization is also growing. The
political landscape may also be changing. Dissatisfaction with globalization has led to the election of
governments in Latin America hostile to the process. A somewhat similar reaction can be
seen in the United States, where both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton promised during the
Democratic primary season to re-evaluate the nations existing free trade agreements. Last week, efforts
to complete what is known as the Doha round of trade talks collapsed in acrimony, dealing a serious blow to tariff reduction. The
negotiations, begun in 2001, failed after China and India battled the United States over agricultural tariffs, with the two developing
countries insisting on broad rights to protect themselves against surges of food imports that could hurt their farmers. Some critics of
globalization are encouraged by those developments, which they see as a welcome check on the process. On environmentalist blogs,
some are even gleefully promoting a globalization death watch. Many leading economists say such predictions are probably
overblown. It would be a mistake, a misinterpretation, to think that a huge rollback or reversal of fundamental trends is under way,
said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Distance and trade costs do matter, but we are still in a
globalized era. As economists and business executives well know, shipping costs are only one factor in determining the flow of
international trade. When companies decide where to invest in a new factory or from whom to buy a product, they also take into
account exchange rates, consumer confidence, labor costs, government regulations and the availability of skilled managers. People
Were Profligate What may be coming to an end are price-driven oddities like chicken and fish crossing the ocean from the Western
Hemisphere to be filleted and packaged in Asia not to be consumed there, but to be shipped back across the Pacific again. Because of
low costs, people were profligate, said Nayan Chanda, author of Bound Together, a history of globalization. The industries
most likely to be affected by the sharp rise in transportation costs are those producing
heavy or bulky goods that are particularly expensive to ship relative to their sale price. Steel
is an example. Chinas steel exports to the United States are now tumbling by more than 20 percent on a year-over-year basis, their
worst performance in a decade, while American steel production has been rising after years of decline. Motors and machinery of all
types, car parts, industrial presses, refrigerators, television sets and other home appliances could also be affected. Plants in industries
that require relatively less investment in infrastructure, like furniture, footwear and toys, are already showing signs of mobility as
shipping costs rise. Until recently, standard practice in the furniture industry was to ship American timber from ports like Norfolk,
Baltimore and Charleston to China, where oak and cherry would be milled into sofas, beds, tables, cabinets and chairs, which were
then shipped back to the United States. But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furnituremaking centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea
plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most
emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States. Among them is
Craftmaster Furniture, a company founded in North Carolina but now Chinese-owned. And at an industry fair in April, La-Z-Boy
announced a new line that will begin production in North Carolina this month. Theres just a handful of us left, but it has become
easier for us domestic folks to compete, said Steven Kincaid of Kincaid Furniture in Hudson, N.C., a division of La-Z-Boy. Avocado
Salad in January Soaring transportation costs also have an impact on food, from bananas to salmon. Higher shipping rates could
eventually transform some items now found in the typical middle-class pantry into luxuries and further promote the so-called local
food movement popular in many American and European cities. Page 3 of 3 (Page 3 of 3) This is not just about steel, but also
maple syrup and avocados and blueberries at the grocery store, shipped from places like Chile and South Africa, said Jeff Rubin,
chief economist at CIBC World Markets and co-author of its recent study on transport costs and globalization. Avocado salad in
Minneapolis in January is just not going to work in this new world, because flying it in is going to make it cost as much as a rib eye.
Global companies like General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa and Procter & Gamble are
beginning to respond to the simultaneous increases in shipping and environmental costs
with green policies meant to reduce both fuel consumption and carbon emissions . That pressure is
likely to increase as both manufacturers and retailers seek ways to tighten the global supply chain. Being green is in their best
interests not so much in making money as saving money, said Gary Yohe, an environmental economist at Wesleyan University.
Green companies are likely to be a permanent trend, as these vulnerabilities continue, but its going to take a
long time for all this to settle down. In addition, the sharp increase in transportation costs has implications for the just-in-time
system pioneered in Japan and later adopted the world over. It is a highly profitable business strategy aimed at reducing warehousing
and inventory costs by arranging for raw materials and other supplies to arrive only when needed, and not before. Jeffrey E. Garten,
the author of World View: Global Strategies for the New Economy and a former dean of the Yale School of Management, said that
companies cannot take a risk that the just-in-time system wont function, because the whole global trading system is based on that
notion. As a result, he said, they are going to have to have redundancies in the supply chain, like more warehousing and multiple
sources of supply and even production. One likely outcome if transportation rates stay high, economists
said, would be a strengthening of the neighborhood effect. Instead of seeking supplies wherever they can be
bought most cheaply, regardless of location, and outsourcing the assembly of products all over the world, manufacturers
would instead concentrate on performing those activities as close to home as possible. In a
more regionalized trading world, economists say, China would probably end up buying more of the iron ore
it needs from Australia and less from Brazil, and farming out an even greater proportion of
its manufacturing work to places like Vietnam and Thailand. Similarly, Mexicos maquiladora sector, the
assembly plants concentrated near its border with the United States, would become more attractive to manufacturers with an eye on
the American market. But a trend toward regionalization would not necessarily benefit the United
States, economists caution. Not only has it lost some of its manufacturing base and skills
over the past quarter-century, and experienced a decline in consumer confidence as part of
the current slowdown, but it is also far from the economies that have become the most
dynamic in the world, those of Asia. Despite everything, the American economy is still the biggest Rottweiler on the
block, said Jagdish N. Bhagwati, the author of In Defense of Globalization and a professor of economics at Columbia. But if its
expensive to get products from there to here, its also expensive to get them from here to
there.
The plan develops small scale nuclear reactors to power

ships this is best and most viable.
Even
though the nuclear environment has changed since the writing of the IMO (1981) Resolution
A.491 XII most of the safety principles are applicable today. However, there are a number of areas
where ship safety assessment requirements have changed due to advances in technology and
detailed methods underpinning regulatory requirements. For example, at detailed design stage it might be
pertinent to use a probabilistic rather than deterministic approach for damage stability . It
The feasibility study presented in this paper is based on a top level risk assessment process driven by qualitative objectives.
also might be more appropriate to ensure engineering capability is achieved while the risks to life and the environment, as far as
practicable, are mitigated in an appropriately transparent manner. This approach is consistent with the regulation of most land-based
nuclear industries. Within this context, the marine industry could base its approach on instruments
similar to the INF Code (INF, 1974). The Lloyds Register guidance notes for marine nuclear propulsion (Lloyds Register,
2011) introduce the concept of the so called design authority. Following this approach may help to ensure that
the overall design, construction and operation, of a nuclear ship as an integrated system are
assured. Without any intention to constraint the direction of any future innovation initiatives the following research and
development directions could help to develop the required knowledge for future classification and approval: The risk based design
development process presented has not considered in detail the IMO FSA guidelines. Future development and modernisation of the
nuclear specific maritime regulations (e.g. INF, 1974 and IMO, 1981) may require the development of a database and methodology of
marine accident investigation encompassing such goal based risk based design principles (e.g. Cai et al., 2012); Optimisation of the
introduced design using holistic multi criteria objectives applicable to alternative arrangements and operational scenarios has not been
considered. Further work on this direction could assist with realisation of practical design constraints, options and their applicability
(e.g. Papanikolaou, 2010); This study did not address explicitly detailed design verification aspects related with the mitigation of
the effects of wave or accidental loads (e.g. grounding, collision, fire and explosion) or extreme events (e.g. rogue waves, piracy and
terrorist attacks) magnifying risk. Naturally such work would be essential at detailed. Considering the practical complexities
associated with undertaking such type of work research and development activities would be expected to play an important role in
capturing the effects of risk peculiar to nuclear ships (e.g. see Dietrich, 1976, Hirdaris et al., 2011b, Subin et al., 2012, Temarel and
Hirdaris, 2009 and Paik et al., 1998); The EHFA identified a number of potential human hazards that could cause failures or
contribute to the occurrence of failures as identified by the HAZID. Absence of key maritime regulations constraint this part of the
analysis. Further development will be necessary to integrate human factors requirements possibly from the nuclear into the marine
industry framework. Whereas there seems to be good potential in furthering research efforts, it is imperative to realise that
commercial realisation of nuclear shipping will have to carve out space or niche for itself amongst other propulsion technology
options by bridging technical or technological challenges with economic, social and political factors. Convincing stakeholders about
the technical and operational, safety and security issues of the asset over its lifecycle may not be solely rooted upon technical but
commercial, legislative risks as well as perceptions. To this end the following key issues should be considered: Classification and
regulation framework: It is possible that application of SMR technology onboard ocean going vessels would imply that the existing
maritime regulatory framework would have to be reviewed. In this new era Classification Societies would be responsible for
facilitating the assurance for the successful integration of reactor modules on the ship within the context of risk based design and will
have to ensure that hazards from/to the ship reactor are managed. On the other hand, land based nuclear
regulators would have to be involved in classifying/assuring the reactor and facilitating an

open dialogue with the builder and designers. Since the regulatory and policy framework
for SMR implementation is still unknown facilitation of the concept presented may not be
imminently possible. Variation of national regulations for ship construction, the need for adoption of special flag authority
procedures add on additional potential showstoppers. Considering that the current style of regulation within the maritime industry is
prescriptive and the operational framework of national nuclear administrations is highly segmented, addressing the needs of the
technology, regulators and organisations involved within the context harmonised performance based standards that account for the
demands of both nuclear and shipping industries at worldwide level seems rather challenging. Public perception: Convincing
stakeholders about the technical and operational safety of the ship is a key challenge and
stakeholder perceptions may or may not be rooted in actual risks. To many, nuclear reactors,
whether of SMR or older technology, will be inescapably linked with accidents such as Fukushima,
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. This reaction in the aftermath of nuclear accidents increases the challenges faced by the nuclear
industry. Nuclear ships will be subject to particular attention, during design, construction, operation and decommissioning. Any
nuclear accident, on land or at sea, could impact on nuclear merchant shipping and the acceptability might change over time in
response to public and societal reactions that may be extreme. Maritime operations and infrastructure: The necessity to
provide an effective emergency response capability supported by external agencies is

anticipated to put additional requirements on competence development for all stakeholders. Ship specific competence
development and assurance for shore and ship personnel will be almost certainly required
for the reliable operation of nuclear-powered vessels. This may require a new model for resourcing that is
significantly different to that traditionally employed in the maritime industry in order to deliver continuity of expertise. Broad
technical and institutional challenges involve the deployment, testing and validation of
technological innovations in components, systems and engineering (especially testing and fabrication of fuel), fear
of first-of-kind reactor designs, economy-of-scale, perceived risk factors for nuclear power plants, and regulatory and licensing issues.
Other issues to be addressed are the cost of reactor decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel and
supply chain management. 9. Conclusions This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear
propulsion and for the purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker
powered by the Gen4Energy 70MW SMR. Assessment of the risks associated with different SMR
locations and power train systems suggested that an SMR located aft the cargo tanks, below
the foreword end of the accommodation would be preferable. A direct shaft line with a CRP
Azipod mechanical installation would be the preferred main propulsion option on the basis
that it would lead to a modest 11% increase to the overall ship length compared to the
reference design, once the necessary adjustments are made for the changes in hydrostatic trim. Such arrangement
combined with a conventional diesel engine would be adequate for propulsive redundancy
assuming operations and faults under harbour and ocean going conditions. The risk
assessment process and engineering solutions developed demonstrate that the concept that
has been described would be feasible. However, considering that the current style of regulation
within the maritime industry is prescriptive and the operational framework of national
nuclear administrations is highly segmented, readdressing the needs of the technology,
regulators and organisations involved within the context of harmonised performance based
standards will be necessary for the pragmatic implementation of the concept presented over
the long term. International shipping has a well established reputation as the most energy efficient
mode of freight transport. However, treating shipping within the context of global
environmental concerns has gained significant momentum over the last 10 years , particularly in
relation to the generation of Green House Gases (GHG) and other contributions to air and water pollution.
Shipping relies on fuel oil and this implies that understanding the potential of alternative
non-carbon marine propulsion technologies is necessary as the industry moves forward
with its longer term decarbonisation efforts. Without any intend to underestimate the potential environmental and
economic benefits of renewable, natural gas or non-fossil (e.g. biofuels) energy resources, it would be only sensible to
add on the nuclear engineering option as a possible alternative. As successful as traditional nuclear
propulsion has been in the naval and ice breaker ship segments, one aspect of the industry that escaped attention
in the commercial sector is the use of modern small and medium size reactor technology onboard ocean going vessels. This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and for the
purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker powered by the
Gen4Energy 70MW Small Modular Reactor (SMR). It is shown that understanding the technical risks and implications of
implementing modern nuclear technology is an essential first step in the long term process of developing knowledge and experience.
And, Fuel efficient shipping is key oil prices will rise in

the long term high prices prevent shipping.
Cosimo Beverelli et. al., 4/1/2010, Professor of Economics @ University of Geneva,
Ph.D. in International Economics, Graduate Institute, Geneva and University of Geneva, Prof.
Hercules Haralambides (Erasmus University, Rotterdam), Prof. Anthony Venables (Oxford
University) and Gordon Wilmsmeier (Edinburgh Napier University), Oil Prices and Maritime
Freight Rates: An Empirical Investigation, UN Conference on Trade and Development,
http://unctad.org/en/docs/dtltlb20092_en.pdf
75. Maritime
transport, enabled by, inter alia, technological advances and competitive transport costs, is estimated to
handle over 80 per cent world trade by volume and over 70 per cent by value .98
Understanding the determinants of shipping costs and their implications for transport and
trade is, therefore, of the essence for traders, transport operators as well as policymakers and
regulators. For many developing countries, international transport costs are already high and can often surpass customs duties as
a barrier to international trade. While much of the existing literature has focused on determinants of transport costs such as distance,
economies of scale, technology, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks, little empirical research has been carried
out on the effect of oil prices. The potential effect of oil prices on maritime freight rates is,
however, of particular interest, given (a) the heavy reliance of the maritime transport sector
on fuel oil for propulsion and (b) the fact that fossil fuel reserves are increasingly depleting
and high levels of oil prices may therefore be expected in the longer run. 76. Against this
background, the objective of the present study was to improve the understanding of the relationship between rising and volatile oil
prices and maritime freight rates. Towards this objective, regression analysis was used to estimate the degree of sensitivity of maritime
freight rates to changes in Brent Crude oil prices (used as proxy for bunker fuel costs), focusing, in particular, on container transport.
The study also attempted to extend the analysis to cover some dry and wet bulk trades (i.e. iron ore and oil). 77. The results of the
investigation confirm that oil prices do have an effect on maritime freight rates in the container trade as
well as in the bulk trade with estimated elasticities varying , depending on the market segment and the
specification. Moreover, the results for container trade suggest the presence of a structural break,
whereby the effect of oil prices on container freight rates is larger in periods of sharply rising
and more volatile oil prices, compared to periods of low and stable oil prices. This entails some
potential implications for maritime transport and trade, if oil prices resume their spiraling
trend observed in 2007 and 2008 and reach sustained high (and possibly, unprecedented) levels. Future high
levels of oil prices and any consequent increase in freight rates may be of particular
relevance for lower value goods and, more generally, for the trade of developing countries whose
transport costs are already higher. 78. It might be argued that the economic downturn that unfolded in late 2008 has
alleviated the problem by driving down both oil prices and transport costs. However, as the downturn reflects a bust in
the global economic cycle and is likely to be temporary ,99 it should not detract attention
from the long-term implications of rising oil prices on transport and trade , nor should it downplay
the urgent need to scale up investment in alternative energy and energy efficiency. Indeed, all things considered , it is evident
that further increases of oil prices are to be expected and probably to levels which have not
yet been reached. This is not only because of supply and demand pressures, but also due to a
range of uncertainties that are associated with the energy sector . Some of these include, for example, (a)
concerns over the expected future levels of proven oil reserves; (b) production levels and the prospects of a peak; (c)
the prohibitive cost of 98 Calculations are based on the international seaborne trade data published in UNCTAD (2009(b)), and the
global trade data as obtained from Global Insight in 2007. 99 See, for example, the liner shipping industry response to the recent rise
in bunker fuel costs as reported in Clarkson Shipping, Container Monthly Intelligence Monthly, Vol. 11, No.12, 18 December 2009.
32 extracting non-conventional fossil fuels such as tar sand; (d) significant investment
requirements; (e) time lags between the discovery of an oil field and its actual functioning; (f) forecast
growth in the world population; and (g) energy consumption and additional energy requirements associated
with climate change adaptation. While the need for investment in energy-efficient technologies is increasingly being
recognized in view of climate change considerations and global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions,
the results of the present study underscore the need to aim for fuel efficiency in investment
decisions as well as in operational practices.
Efficient and cheap energy is key to sustain the shipping

industry SMRs are key.
Sylvia Pfeifer, 2/14/2013, Energy Editor at The Financial Times, BA in German and
English @ Oxford, MA in English @ Georgetown, Nuclear energy: Flexible fission, FT,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/71d62476-706e-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#axzz386y16Uvc
Akademik Lomonosovs small plant represents a radical new trend in the nuclear industry. After
more than 50 years in which the pursuit of economies of scale and more power has made
nuclear plants bigger and bigger, they are now shrinking. The atomic industry is thinking
small. Cost is driving the change. At a time when utility companies are struggling financially
and delays on large reactors lengthen, small reactors offer hope. They typically generate up
to 300 megawatts of electricity per reactor about a fifth of the output of a normal full-size
plant and are about a third of the physical size of traditional ones. Their size means their
capital cost should be much lower, making them attractive to lenders who would also see a
quicker return on their investment. Centrica, the British utility, pulled out of a project this month
to build big reactors in the UK, blaming spiralling costs and delays. Small nuclear plants also
offer flexibility. They could power remote or standalone industrial sites or desalination
plants. If they were put together in batches, they would give nuclear power the kind of gridfriendly flexibility now offered by gas or coal-fired stations. Developing nations that do not have
established electricity distribution networks are another potential market. A final attraction is
that these smaller reactors could be built in factories in relatively large numbers. Big nuclear
plants, which require heavy civil engineering works as well as a difficult fusion of mechanical,
electrical and computer systems, have a tendency to be delivered late and over budget. The
market has started to appreciate there could be commercial applications for smaller
reactors, says Richard Clegg, global nuclear director at Lloyds Register. They are already
being used for military applications. It is a real prospect, not a fantasy. Executives believe
such innovation is necessary if the industry is to secure a long-term place in the worlds
changing energy mix, one that looks for affordable power and reduced carbon emissions.
The worlds demand for electricity will grow almost twice as fast as its total energy
consumption by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency. Nuclear offers a lowcarbon source of power but concerns about its safety, as well as costs and delays, persist.
From waste to fuel
Independently, Arctic shipping is inevitable, but absent

the plan, ships cause polar icecap melting and positive
feedback cycles.
What Nuclear Power Offers the Shipping Industry The cost of nuclear fuel is low and stable,
which means speed is not an economic limitation for nuclear powered ships. While slowsteaming for fossil-fueled ships can reduce costs for the ship owners through lower fuel
consumption, the benefits are not necessarily felt by cargo owners unless those lower fuel costs
translate into lower freight rates. While time sensitive cargo does not go on ships, there is a
certain benefit to getting cargo to the buyers as quickly as possible. Nuclear power can
achieve these higher speeds for much lower costs than fossil-fueled powered vessels. Based
on the low cost of fuel, the economics of nuclear powered ships will tend towards higher
speeds such as 20 knots for bulk carriers, or 30 knots for container ships. Slow steaming is a
strategy that evolved relatively recently to lower fuel costs and absorb excess capacity by
reducing the number of vessels available at any given time as they are locked up in longer transit
times (Jorgensen, 2013). It is not necessarily ideal for the containerized cargo market (Kloch,
2013). 4 Future environmental regulations concerning fossil fuel emissions place constraints
on the types of fuels vessels can burn, raising costs through limited availability (Lloyd's, 2012).
Nuclear reactors do not produce these emissions and do not have the same limitations on fuel
supply. While radioactive wastes are produced, these are contained within the reactors and
are not released into the environment. Nuclear powers most significant environmental
advantages is that it will allow for total compliance to atmospheric emissions regulations, and
will allow for environmentally responsible transarctic shipping. Trans-Arctic Shipping The
steady decline of polar sea ice over the last few decades has led to predictions that the North
Polar regions will be open to regular marine traffic by at least the middle of the century
(sooner if specially constructed ice-breaking vessels are built). This has generated a lot of
excitement in maritime industry circles as it provides shorter distances compared to current
trade routes, alternatives to the Panama and Suez canals, and represents a new frontier for
exploration and development. However, there are challenges and environmental aspects that must
be considered. The production of soot from oil and gas burning engines will be caught in the
circumpolar winds of the Arctic atmosphere and eventually be deposited on the snow and
ice (Femenia, 2008). Research has shown that seemingly miniscule amounts of soot can
increase the heat retention of snow and ice, leading to increased melting (Hansen &
Nazarenko, 2003). This is an issue independent from CO2 emissions. Ice loss in the arctic is
prone to being a positive feedback loop where as more ice is loss, the region warms up due
to the increase in absorbed sunlight, which results in more ice loss and the situation is
worsened (Hansen & Nazarenko, 2003). The presence of hundreds, if not thousands of
hydrocarbon burning vessels in the Arctic region would lead to substantial ice loss
independent from concerns regarding anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Arctic Marine Shipping
Assessment, 2009) 5 The use of natural gas is not a silver bullet for this issue because the
lubricating oil in the cylinders of diesel engines will be burned and also produce soot
(Femenia, 2008). It does not take a lot of soot to increase the heat retention of ice. Nuclear
power is the only way to avoid this potential environmental damage while still remaining
economical. Another aspect of utilizing nuclear power for transarctic vessels is the
disproportionately lower fuel cost of nuclear fuel compared to liquefied natural gas and fuel
oil, allowing for higher powers and operating speeds. There is a considerable amount of extra
power needed to break through several feet of ice. Because the transarctic ships will be
susceptible to bad weather that can delay their voyages, higher open-ocean speeds will be
needed to make up the lost time. Nuclear power can achieve these speeds much more cheaply
due to its lower fuel costs.
SMRs are most viable for shipping and can fill in the gap
caused by prices assumes all your warrants.
G. Sawyer et. al., 2008, G. Sawyer, J. Shirley, J. Stroud & E. Bartlett, General
Management Partners, LLC, USA, G. A. Sawyer is a founding partner of J.F. Lehman &
Company and since January 2004 serves as Executive Advisor to J.F. Lehman & Company,
graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University and Completed graduate studies in nuclear
engineering at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories, ANALYSIS OF HIGH-SPEED TRANSPACIFIC NUCLEAR CONTAINERSHIP SERVICE,
As mentioned above, the economic comparison between diesel and nuclear fleets is strongly
dependent upon diesel fuel price. If we assume that over time the cost of fossil fuels will
continue to increase, the fuel surcharges already widely applied by ship owners worldwide
will continue to increase top line revenue for both fleets of ships. However , since the
nuclear ship will incur very little additional fuel related expense its bottom line will improve
significantly and narrow the predicted NPV gap. Based upon the cost criteria developed above
and modeled econometrically by Manalytics and GMP, it is estimated that on the basis of oil
pricing alone the nuclear service could be economically equivalent to the conventional
service with future bunker fuel prices of $455 per metric ton (or $89 per bbl) and MDO prices of
$890 per metric ton, along with the requirement to burn MDO within 40 miles of shore. This
results in a net blended fuel price of $585.50 as compared to the $455/tonne used initially. See
Figure 10 below. As was noted several times in previous sections, there are other forces at
work beyond market supply and demand contributing to the price of marine fuels.
California is already regulating large ships and the burning of residual fuels due to gas
emission (NOx and SOx) and has enacted legislation to require ships to burn cleaner Marine
Diesel Oil (MDO) low in sulphur content within 20 nautical miles of its coastline and by 2008
this requirement will be extended to 40 nautical miles. Should bunker fuels be prohibited
entirely in the future, the result would have a dramatic effect on fuel costs. In this case of a
complete ban on bunker fuels, fuel costs would double overnight making the nuclear
containership service economically superior immediately with a NPV of $780 million compared
to $259 million for the conventional service. Further, current cost analyses do not make any
provision for the cost of climate change . This is a new subject and is not uniformly
implemented. The authors have seen discussions that suggest that the dollarized cost of
carbon emissions lies in the neighborhood of US$100 / tonne- CO2. (We have seen figures
ranging from US$50 to US$250/t.) Based on $100/t, this means that the cost of burning one
barrel of petroleum should be increased by about US$40, to account for the cost of the
carbon impact. Some jurisdictions are talking about handling this explicitly, in the form of a
carbon tax. In other jurisdictions it is being ignored. If this cost were indeed applied to the cost of
petroleum, then it would mean that oil is today trading at about US$100+40 = $140/bbl well
above the break even point for the nuclear alternative. We believe that the above analysis is
realistic and conservative . This analysis shows that the commercial nuclear containership is
both technically and economically feasible. As oil becomes more expensive, it seems
inevitable that nuclear power will become competitive for commercial marine propulsion
initially for very large, fast ships as described here and subsequently for medium-size ships
of moderate speed. This conclusion does hinge upon the assumption that the major nonrecurring costs and economic risks involved in re-starting a commercial nuclear ship
program would be absorbed by the U.S. Government and that such an express service is
deemed to have commercial merit by the industry. Further, we believe that this application
has potential national security benefits as well since any one of the vessels in this fleet could
provide emergency electrical power to a significant fraction of a citys demand grid and
certainly to the industrial complex surrounding one of our major ports. Further study of
alternatives may well improve on the economic results depictedfor example: Extending core
lifetimes and refueling intervals to 7 years vs. the 5 years of the reference design, as deemed
appropriate by several nuclear experts who have read the full report from which this paper has
been excerpted, Investigating the economic feasibility in enlarging the reference design ship to
12,000 TEU capacity vs. 9,200; (There is no inherent technical issue associated in such an
enlargement). Examining the economic potential and comparative fleet sizing of a possible
extended express service to the East Coast of the United States; Studying the potential
economics involved should one of the carbon tax or trade concepts now being explored for CO2
abatement become a matter of law or regulation. In summary, a large, fast commercial nuclear
ship is technically feasible today using proven PWR technology that is both currently available
and in wide service. The principal issue that now confronts the authors and sponsors of this
study is not to engage in further paper studies per se, but to find an appropriate sponsor in
industry and a capable, motivated agency within Government who together are willing to
provide leadership and funding to get on with the hard work of preliminary design of such a
vessel and develop the engineering details necessary to permit serious investigation by cognizant
regulatory agencies within Government and Class. We estimate that such an effort would entail
about two years of effort and cost approximately US$5 Million. Its scope would include the
ship and propulsion systems design itself, appropriate review and analysis by Class, evaluation of
the alternatives affecting principal characteristics of the vessel and service as described above, a
budgetary estimate of both non-recurring and recurring costs, and submission of an engineered
product in sufficient detail to permit a preliminary review by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Maritime Shipping is key to global trade.

Sofia Persson and Anna Dubaric-Norling November 2009, Trade Policy
Analyst at the Swedish National Board of Trade, analyst at National Board of Trade, Trade
Facilitation and Maritime Transport: The Development Agenda, National Board of Trade,
http://www.kommers.se/upload/Analysarkiv/Arbetsomr%E5den/Handelsprocedurer/Trade
%20facilitation%20and%20maritime%20transport%20-%20The%20development%20agenda.pdf
Globalisation increases the opportunities for international trade. Trade facilitation can be a
prerequisite to make use of these trading opportunities. It is a concept directed towards reducing the complexity and cost of
the trade transaction process and making the procedures more efficient, transparent and predictable. Trade facilitation is
hence becoming an increasingly important tool for development, allowing countries to
trade goods on time with low transaction costs. The aim of this study is to discuss how trade facilitation can
reduce transaction costs for maritime transport and contribute to increased integration of developing countries in international trade.
It will address the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
Maritime transport is essential to the world
trade . Over 80 per cent of the volume of world merchandise trade is carried by sea, and an
even higher per centage of developing-country trade is carried in ships (UNCTAD, 2008a). Before
the current financial crisis, world trade had undergone a period of strong expansion. During the period from 1995 to 2007, trade grew
more rapidly than the world GDP (Gross Domes- tic Production). w Since 1995, world trade in goods has increased by 170 per
cent in nominal terms (108 per cent in real terms). w In 1995, trade comprised almost 22 per cent of the world economy. Twelve
years later, in 2007, this figure has increased to 32 per cent (National Board of Trade, 2009c). This development has gone
hand in hand with an increase in the volumes of traded goods transported by sea (see figure 1).
In 2007, international seaborne trade was estimated at 8 billion ton of goods loaded . During the past
three decades the annual average growth rate of world seaborne trade is estimated as 3.1 per
cent. Dry cargo (bulk, break-bulk and containerized cargo) accounted for 66.6 per cent of the good loaded.
The rest is oil and petroleum transports. (UNCTAD, 2008a) The major loading points for goods
transported by sea are located in developing countries and the goods are predominantly
transported to developed countries (see figure 2). A breakdown of the group of developing countries shows that
goods are 8 predominantly loaded in Asia which represents close to 40 per cent of the total goods loaded followed be
Americas (14.7 per cent), Africa (10.5 per cent) and Oceania (0.1 per cent). The transport flows thus go from developing countries to
developed countries. 53 per cent of the volume of world seaborne trade is unloaded in developed countries. Figure 1 Indices for total
world trade, maritime trade and GDP (gross domestic production). The environmental impact of transport for
trade is an important issue. Transports, commercial as well as private, contributes to 14

per cent of the total global discharge of greenhouse gases. Although over 80 per cent of the global trade in
goods are transported by sea, maritime transports contribute to less than 2 per cent. (National Board of Trade, 2008a) The
development in international trade and transport has been promoted by several factors.
Tariffs and other barriers to trade have decreased through multilateral negotiations in the
WTO and through regional and bilateral agreements. Many developing countries, such as
China and India among others, have also undertaken unilateral liberalisation of their trade
policies. Larger trade volumes also results from increased in trade complexity. Compa- nies are increasingly sourcing parts from
other countries and also using different geographical locations for their production. Transport systems have also
evolved to todays container ships taking advantage economies of scale. The costs of
maritime transport have declined over time. The WTO World Trade Report 2008 cites three main technological
and institutional changes as reasons for the lowering of shipping cost. First the development of open registry shipping, scale effects
from increased trade and containerization. (World Trade Report, 2008)
That solves war best models flow af.

Erik Gartzke*, Quan Li**, and Charles Boehmer***, 2001, *Associate Professor
of Political Science @ UC San Diego, **Professor of Political Science @ Texas A&M,
***Professor of Political Science @ University of Texas El Paso, Investing in the Peace:
Economic Interdependence and International Conflict,
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzkeetal_io_01.pdf
We have reviewed arguments for the effect of economic interdependence on peace. We show that existing
accounts are
insufficient to explain why liberal economies are less likely to fight , but that a signaling argument is
consistent with the observation. We also expand interdependence to include financial and monetary
integration, offering a set of variables that measure these processes. Our results corroborate our hypotheses.
This paper is limited by data and by a theoretical framework that is necessarily simplified. Still, despite weaknesses, the
combination of theory and analysis offer a compelling and not-inconsiderable refinement of
the relationship between economics and peace. Trade and direct investment increase crossborder economic contact and raise a states stake in maintaining linkages. Monetary
coordination and interdependence demand that states strike deals. Through such interactions, states
create a broad set of mutually beneficial economic linkages . While these linkages may deter
very modest clashes, their main impact is as a substitute method for resolving conflict .
Political shocks that threaten to damage or destroy economic linkages generate information,
reducing uncertainty when leaders bargain. Threats from interdependent states carry more
weight than threats from autarchic states precisely because markets inform observers as to the
veracity of political cheap talk. Multiple channels of economic interactions help states to
credibly communicate, increasing the vocabulary available to states in attempting to
assess relative resolve. A signaling interpretation of interdependence offers some promise both
analytically and in terms of international events. If costly signaling through economic interdependence reduces states
recourse to military violence, then increasing economic interdependence (globalization) implies the prospect of
a more pacific global system. It is difficult to anticipate the magnitude of the pacific effect of interdependence, however, as
other factors, such as increasing polarization, may add to the motives for conflict. At the same time, the signaling argument
implies that much of the variance in conflict propensity is unknowable . Before we can have greater
confidence in our results, we need to examine a larger data sample, including all dyads and longer time spans. Precise measures may
be obtained by limiting the sample to United States dyads. Finally, the effects of democracy on conflict appear to require additional
assessment. However, our findings provide evidence (and a rationale) suggesting that liberal economics
may be at least as salient to peace as liberal politics.
And, interdependence is an impact filter for conflict

incentivizes cooperation.
Erik Gartzke*, Quan Li**, and Charles Boehmer***, 2001, *Associate Professor
of Political Science @ UC San Diego, **Professor of Political Science @ Texas A&M,
***Professor of Political Science @ University of Texas El Paso, Investing in the Peace:
Economic Interdependence and International Conflict,
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzkeetal_io_01.pdf
Explanations for war are legion. However, work by James Fearon and others shows that most
purposive theories of war

are internally inconsistent in that they do not account for the behavior of interest . Fearon points
out that theories of war commonly conflate the motives for conflict with the choice of method for conflict resolution . Costly
contests involve at least two elements. First, there is zero-sum competition for an excludable
good. States differ over issues or territory that each cannot possess simultaneously. Second,
states choose a settlement method .
The choice of method is non zero-sum. Transaction costs deprive winners of
Since war is
expensive, fighting makes sense only if equivalent settlements cannot be obtained using
cheaper methods. A theory of war, then, explains why efficient settlements are at times unobtainable ex ante. Fearon follows
benefits and increase the burden for losers so that all are better off selecting methods that minimize costs.
Blainey in arguing that wars result from uncertainty about conditions likely to influence eventual settlements as well as incentives
states have to misrepresent these conditions. States possess private information about strategic variables
(capabilities, resolve, etc.). If states could credibly share private information, efficient ex ante bargains could be identified. Instead,
uncertainty provides weak or unresolved states an opportunity to conceal weakness even as

competition creates incentives to bluff. States pool, claiming to be resolved and capable regardless of their true
nature. Such cheap talk claims do not allow observers to differentiate resolved or capable
opponents from the weak or unresolved. Only by imposing costly contestsby fighting or
similar actscan states distinguish resolute opponents from those seeking to bluff . States fight
largely because they cannot agree on bargains that each prefers to what each expects to
obtain from fighting. If states can agree about the nature of eventual settlements, then there is always some mutually
preferable bargain. Uncertainty about the allocation of spoils from the contest then, accounts for
the contest itself.
<<this causes runaway warming -- > ext>>

or some form of environment !
1AC Natural Disasters

Tsunamis coming now and will destroy the west coast
Glader 11(Paul Glader, a journalist currently based in Berlin, Germany, is managing editor of
www.WiredAcademic.com, an independent news source, WITH TSUNAMI IMAGES STILL FRESH AND TERRIFYING,
RESEARCH RAMPS UP IN U.S. LABS, fast company, May 5, 2011, http://www.fastcompany.com/1751627/tsunami-imagesstill-fresh-and-terrifying-research-ramps-us-labs)
With images of the Japan earthquake and tsunami fresh in the minds of coastal dwellers
everywhere, tsunami science is getting a fresh infusion of interest, and cash, in the U.S. From
giant wave basins in Oregon to current-speed detectors in California, the U.S. is expanding its
tsunami research, especially in the Pacific Northwest states that researchers say face grave
risk of big-wave destruction. Oregon State University scientist Solomon Yim, director of the
O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory, says that each time a major tsunami hits, his $20
million lab sees an uptick in research projects from his average of $2 million in annual grants.
"Before 2004, tsunamis were not on the radar screen of Americans," says Yim. That all changed
with the Indonesian tsunami, and in 2005, the departments of transportation for the three western
coastal states commissioned more research. The Japanese tsunami may be the most influential
of all when it comes to spurring research and increasing public awareness. Historically,
tsunamis often occurred at night or in places where people didn't have video cameras. But
the dramatic images from Japan may have--literally--shed new light on big-wave disasters.
"There is no question the video footage of the Japan tsunami is incredible," says Lori Dengler,
chairwoman of the geology and oceanography departments at Humboldt State University in
Arcata, Calif., who heads the Humboldt Earthquake Education Center. "Prior to that, we had
relatively no good footage of the tsunami. Yim's lab has expanded to six people, up from three,
in the past five years. He is studying, for example, the debris kicked up by a tsunami, and the
impact on structures. "The coastal engineers and harbor people need to take tsunamis into account
for design," he says. "They do have bridges sticking right out into the ocean." (Note to engineers:
Don't do this anymore.) A structural engineer with a background in computational fluid dynamics,
Yim researches how fluids impact structures. His tsunami center, which opened in 2000, now has
two large basins, one of them 342 feet long. Imagine a much bigger, scarier water-park pool that
simulates giant, destructive waves. Now, he is busy calculating the physics of damage a tsunami
could cause on bridges, roads, and other infrastructure on the West Coast. His findings suggest
cylinders resist tsunamis better than other shapes of pillars that hold up bridges. Any corners or
abrupt changes stick out and catch water, while the cylinder "is the optimum shape." On buildings
that must use I-beams and other corners, he said engineers should focus on creating a strong
frame with tearaway panels to withstand damage. As for Dengler, who is heavily involved with
the efforts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the National
Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, she's helping to develop and test an instrument that tracks
the speed of tsunami currents. Their prototype in Humboldt Bay measures current velocity, and
caught early signals of the March 11 Japanese earthquake and tsunami. They want to add more
such instruments in California to improve earthquake and tsunami detection. "It's the speed at
which the water flows that may cause the damage, particularly if it carries debris," she said.
In the past, tide gauges recorded the height of tsunami waves, but not the current speed. "We are
really at the very beginning to describe those current philosophies. It's not just public entities
that are getting in on the research and educational initiatives. The U.S.-based giant FM Global
insured nearly 3,000 properties in Japan that sustained less than $150 million in damage.
"Whenever theres a significant issue like in Japan, there are always questions of where else it
could happen," said Lou Gritzo, a vice president and manager of research at FM Global. "The
Pacific Northwest is on the short list. Gritzo said the insurer is working with clients to prevent
damage with methods such as turning off natural gas to buildings to avoid fire damage during an
earthquake, and keeping sprinkler lines in working order. It also does computer modeling of
tsunamis. All this is not to say that the U.S.--which racked up $60 million in damages on
March 11 as waves from Japan's tsunami reached the West Coast--is where it needs to be
with tsunami research or preparedness. Despite the near-meltdown at the Fukushima
nuclear plant in the wake of the tsunami, and the flurry of new research going on in the
U.S., Japan still is "by far, the most prepared country in the world for tsunamis," said Yim.
Meanwhile, the risks of a West Coast tsunami are far from hypothetical. The Cascadia
Subduction Zone, which spans 600 miles from British Columbia to Northern California, has
potential for generating a large tsunami that could ravage parts of Washington, Oregon,
and northern California. "The Cascadia Earthquake is our biggest concern," says Dengler.
"We are talking about exactly what happened in Japan." She predicts Seattle, Portland,
Sacramento, and San Francisco would have earthquake damage, followed by huge waves
arriving 10 to 15 minutes later. "We're talking about a very, very big tsunami that happens
very, very quickly. Yim and other scientists say the historical record shows a massive tsunami
struck the coast just over 300 years ago, on Jan. 26, 1700, after a 9.0 earthquake rattled the ocean
floor less than 100 miles off the coast of Oregon. Paleontologists have found tsunami deposits up
the Columbia River. Tree-ring indicators and written records in Japan indicate the tremor also
sent water across the ocean. With a major tsunami like that typically recurring every 250
years, the Cascadius is 50 years overdue. Yim puts chances of another major West Coast
tsunami in the next 50 years as high as 85%.
Status quo nuclear plants are susceptible not protected

on land.
Alisha Mims, 03-11-2014, writer and researcher with Ring of Fire, US Nuclear Agency Hid
Safety Concerns After Fukushima, Ring of Fire, http://ringoffireradio.com/2014/03/us-nuclearagency-hid-safety-concerns-fukushima/
After the 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit the Fukushima Daiichi power
plant in Japan, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) made a conscious effort to
downplay the risk of natural disasters to Americas aging nuclear facilities. According to a
report from NBC, the commission actively worked to reassure the public about the safety of
the US nuclear industry even as the agencys own experts were questioning safety
standards. Emails obtained by NBC through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that
officials intentionally hid nuclear industry safety concerns from the public. While we know
more than these say, were sticking to this story for now, Scott Burnell, a manager in NRCs
media and public relations wing, wrote in an email to his colleagues, thanking them for sticking
to prearranged talking points. According to NBC, the emails contain numerous examples of
apparent misdirection or concealment during the initial weeks after the devastating
Fukushima disaster. The US agency attempted to distance the NRC from the crisis in Japan
and cover up the potential risk for a similar disaster at a US nuclear plant: Trying to distance
the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the
presence of Japanese engineers in the NRCs operations center in Maryland. If asked whether
the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the same size
tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were
still studying that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same
magnitude, Were not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that, said one
email. When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded news organizations from using
the NRCs own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy
Center near New York City. And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen during
the worst-case scenario a nuclear meltdown the agency declined to address the questions.
NRC split responses to questions it expected to be asked after Fukushima into two parts:
the public answer and additional technical, non-public information. The response to the
question, What happens when/if a plant melts down? included telling the public that US
nuclear plants are designed to be safe and that there are multiple barriers between the
radioactive material and the environment. However, the non-public, additional information for
the same question stated the following: The melted core may melt through the bottom of the
vessel and flow onto the concrete containment floor. The core may melt through the containment
liner and release radioactive material to the environment. When former US Energy Secretary
Steven Chu appeared on CNN on March 20, 2011, he was questioned as to whether US nuclear
power plants could withstand an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale. Chu hesitated,
but NRC spokesman David McIntyre felt he should have said yes unequivocally and worry
about the lie later. In an email to his bosses McIntyre wrote: The NBC report also notes that The
public affairs staff showed disdain in the emails for nuclear watchdog groups, including the
Union of Concerned Scientists and also the Nuclear Control Institute. NRC also attempted to
discredit an MSNBC news report that publicized an NRC study estimating the risk of earthquakes
to US nuclear plants. NRCs contrived response to the public release of its study was to say that
the study represents a very incomplete look at the overall research and we [NRC] continue to
believe US reactors are capable of withstanding the strongest earthquake their sites could
experience. NRC immediately realized that the Fukushima disaster would create strong interest
in the safety of nuclear energy in the United States. The agencys Office of Public Affairs had
written and distributed the first talking points for its employees less than 10 hours after the
earthquake hit Fukushima, and NRCs technical experts were told not to make any public
statements, NBC reports. A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense states that NRC is
failing to protect the public and suggests that the agency reevaluate its safety responses. The
report asserts that, NRC is failing to meet the statutory standard of adequate protection of
the public against the hazard of hydrogen explosions in a severe reactor accident.
Americas nuclear facilities are susceptible to hydrogen explosions and leakage in the event
of a natural disaster or other severe accident. The median age of an operating US nuclear
reactor is 34 years and more than 30 of the nations 100 reactors have the same brand of
General Electric containment system or reactors used at the Fukushima plant, according to
NBC.
Sea based SMRs key to resistance recent studies prove.

David L. Chandler 4/16/2014, freelance writer, author of 2 books, He was at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999-2000, on a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship,
and has since served as a judge for the fellowship's application process Floating nuclear plants
could ride out tsunamis, MIT News, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/floating-nuclear-plantscould-ride-out-tsunamis-0416
When an earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex in
2011, neither the quake nor the inundation caused the ensuing contamination. Rather, it was
the aftereffects specifically, the lack of cooling for the reactor cores, due to a shutdown
of all power at the station that caused most of the harm. A new design for nuclear plants
built on floating platforms, modeled after those used for offshore oil drilling, could help
avoid such consequences in the future. Such floating plants would be designed to be
automatically cooled by the surrounding seawater in a worst-case scenario, which would
indefinitely prevent any melting of fuel rods, or escape of radioactive material. The concept
is being presented this week at the Small Modular Reactors Symposium, hosted by the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, by MIT professors Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, and
Neil Todreas, along with others from MIT, the University of Wisconsin, and Chicago Bridge and
Iron, a major nuclear plant and offshore platform construction company. Such plants, Buongiorno
explains, could be built in a shipyard, then towed to their destinations five to seven miles
offshore, where they would be moored to the seafloor and connected to land by an underwater
electric transmission line. The concept takes advantage of two mature technologies: lightwater nuclear reactors and offshore oil and gas drilling platforms. Using established designs
minimizes technological risks, says Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science
and engineering (NSE) at MIT. Although the concept of a floating nuclear plant is not
unique Russia is in the process of building one now, on a barge moored at the shore none
have been located far enough offshore to be able to ride out a tsunami, Buongiorno says. For
this new design, he says, the biggest selling point is the enhanced safety. A floating
platform several miles offshore, moored in about 100 meters of water, would be unaffected
by the motions of a tsunami; earthquakes would have no direct effect at all. Meanwhile, the
biggest issue that faces most nuclear plants under emergency conditions overheating and
potential meltdown , as happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island would
be virtually impossible at sea, Buongiorno says: Its very close to the ocean, which is
essentially an infinite heat sink, so its possible to do cooling passively, with no intervention.
The reactor containment itself is essentially underwater. Buongiorno lists several other
advantages. For one thing, it is increasingly difficult and expensive to find suitable sites for
new nuclear plants: They usually need to be next to an ocean, lake, or river to provide
cooling water, but shorefront properties are highly desirable. By contrast, sites offshore, but
out of sight of land, could be located adjacent to the population centers they would serve.
The ocean is inexpensive real estate, Buongiorno says. In addition, at the end of a plants
lifetime, decommissioning could be accomplished by simply towing it away to a central
facility, as is done now for the Navys carrier and submarine reactors. That would rapidly
restore the site to pristine conditions. This design could also help to address practical
construction issues that have tended to make new nuclear plants uneconomical: Shipyard
construction allows for better standardization, and the all-steel design eliminates the use of
concrete, which Buongiorno says is often responsible for construction delays and cost
overruns. There are no particular limits to the size of such plants, he says: They could be
anywhere from small, 50-megawatt plants to 1,000-megawatt plants matching todays largest
facilities. Its a flexible concept, Buongiorno says. Floating nuclear plants could withstand
earthquakes and tsunamis Video: Christopher Sherrill, courtesy of the Department of Nuclear
Science and Engineering Most operations would be similar to those of onshore plants, and
the plant would be designed to meet all regulatory security requirements for terrestrial
plants. Project work has confirmed the feasibility of achieving this goal , including
satisfaction of the extra concern of protection against underwater attack, says Todreas, the
KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.
Buongiorno sees a market for such plants in Asia, which has a combination of high tsunami
risks and a rapidly growing need for new power sources. It would make a lot of sense for
Japan, he says, as well as places such as Indonesia, Chile, and Africa. This is a very
attractive and promising proposal, says Toru Obara, a professor at the Research Laboratory
for Nuclear Reactors at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who was not involved in this research.
I think this is technically very feasible. ... Of course, further study is needed to realize the
concept, but the authors have the answers to each question and the answers are realistic.
Tsunamis on the west coast lead to a meltdown that will

afect 2 continents, much bigger than fukushima
Lendman 11(Stephen Lendman, a writer, syndicated columnist Harvard BA and a Wharton MBA, Nuclear Meltdown
In Japan, rense, March 13, 2011, http://rense.com/general93/nucmelt.htm)
On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued a "Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at
Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying: Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in
Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its
seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that
already may have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to
Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels
of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's)
breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can
be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed
nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled,
"Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey
Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23 years, it has been
clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power.
Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of
the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." " No citizen of any country can be
assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear
reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern
Hemisphere ." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the
melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has
never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from
being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the
quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives
will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said Fukushima's reactor container wasn't breached.
Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No. 1
facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are
affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious. The possibility
of an extreme catastrophe can't be discounted. Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst
John Large told Al Jazeera that by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the
outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion. "When I look at the size of
the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak (because) fuel
continues to generate heat." Already, Fukushima way exceeds Three Mile Island that experienced
a partial core meltdown in Unit 2. Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial
concealed full details until much later. According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman,
Japan's quake fallout may cause nuclear disaster, saying: "This is a very serious situation. If
the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more plants), the super-heated
radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could conceivably have an explosion," that, in
fact, occurred. As a result, massive radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire
region. "It could be, literally, an apocalyptic event. The reactor could blow." If so, Russia,
China, Korea and most parts of Western Asia will be affected. Many thousands will die,
potentially millions under a worse case scenario, including far outside East Asia. Moreover,
at least five reactors are at risk. Already, a 20-mile wide radius was evacuated. What
happened in Japan can occur anywhere. Yet Obama's proposed budget includes $36 billion
for new reactors, a shocking disregard for global safety. Calling Fukushima an "apocalyptic
event," Wasserman said "(t)hese nuclear plants have to be shut," let alone budget billions
for new ones. It's unthinkable, he said. If a similar disaster struck California, nuclear
fallout would affect all America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and parts of South
America.
1AC Desalination
<<inherency>>
Ofshore nuclear power plants key to desalination,

conventional methods fail
Michael Kanellos 07, Staff Writer at CNET specializing in technology, A new source of
water: Floating nuclear power plants, 11-21-07, http://www.cnet.com/news/a-new-source-ofwater-floating-nuclear-power-plants/.
Channel the heat from power plants to give water to a thristy world. That's the idea of a
physicist from the Sont Longowal Institute in Punjab, India. Nuclear power plants have a lot of
excess heat, so why not use that heat to make fresh water? That's the idea of S.S. Verma,
with the Department of Physics at the Sont Longowal Institute in Punjab, India. If located
offshore near large population centers, the plants could provide cheap electricity as well as
fresh water to megacities like Mumbai. Some companies are already looking at developing
desalination platforms that can be attached to nuclear plants, he said, according to the IndoAsian News Service (via Earthtimes). (Verma's complete paper can be found here.) The general
and very serious concerns about nuclear power--what do you do about transportation of nuclear
materials? Disposal and storage? Safety?--of course apply. But it's also an interesting idea.
Nuclear plants do produce a lot of waste heat. Many believe that hydrogen could become
economical if the waste heat from these plants could be used to crack water molecules to
produce the gas. Some companies in Canada are contemplating installing nuclear power plants
near the tar sands deposits in Alberta to produce hydrogen, a necessary ingredient for turning the
goopy tar into usable liquid fuel. The world is mired in a water crisis. In many large cities in
India, people wait in line to get water from roving trucks. Droughts and crop failures are
expected to increase as global temperatures rise. And it's not just in the emerging world.
Australia is suffering through a prolonged shortage of water. Desalination provides an
avenue out of it, but conventional methods are expensive and somewhat time consuming
Ofshore SMRs are key for desalination

Nolan Hertel 07, Nuclear and Radiological Engineer Professor at Georgia Tech, Ph.D.,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Member of U. S. Department of Energy Joint Senior
Review Group, Chair at Department of Energy U. S. Scientific Review Group, Co-Chair of
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, American Society for
Engineering Education-2004 Nuclear Engineering Division Glenn Murphy Award, 12/26/07,
Why sweat? Tap nuclear power [for desalination], Free Republic,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945018/posts.
State governments looking for ways to cope with severe drought in the Southeast should
consider using nuclear power to desalinate seawater. This is a safe and proven technology
that the U.S. Navy has been using for more than a half-century to provide drinking water
for the crews of its nuclear-powered submarines. Until a few years ago, the water debate here in
Georgia was conducted in an almost surreal atmosphere. We appeared to have sufficient supplies
of water to meet our needs, and most of us seemed to feel that this state of affairs would continue
indefinitely. By definition, miracles do not often happen, and it is not likely that the water
problem will be solved by a miracle. The solution, if there is one, will be found in the
development of comprehensive water use plans, strict conservation and technology. No one of
these alone will solve our water problems, but all of them together have a good chance of
succeeding. The discrepancy between the need for water and its availability is seen not only in
the difficulty of allocating scarce resources for households, industries, farms, electricity
production, wildlife and recreation but also sharing common supplies with neighboring states. As
our water resources diminish, it is becoming clear that unless we can come up with
substitute sources of water, we will simply have less water and a lower standard of living.
Experience shows that nuclear reactors can be used to heat seawater in a process known as
"reverse osmosis" to produce large amounts of potable water. The process is already in use
in a number of places around the world, from India to Japan and Russia. Eight nuclear
reactors coupled to desalination plants are operating in Japan alone. Seawater desalination
raises absolutely no technical problems. The technologies have been used for many years.
But most of the world's 12,500 desalination plants use fossil fuels to provide the large
amounts of energy needed to desalinate seawater, and that poses economic problems due to
the rising cost of oil and natural gas and environmental problems from greenhouse-gas
emissions. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is now economically competitive with fossil
fuels and produces no greenhouse gases. It is a viable alternative for desalination. Nuclear
reactors could serve a dual purpose, providing both power and fresh water, as they do in
nuclear submarines. If anchored a few miles offshore, nuclear desalination plants could be a
source of large amounts of potable water transported by pipelines hundreds of miles inland
to serve the needs of communities and industries. A study completed by Argonne National
Laboratory determined that dual-purpose reactors called cogeneration plants "could offer
a major portion" of the additional water and electricity that municipalities and industry
will need for maintaining sustainable development and growth in the years ahead. The
study determined that nuclear power would be less costly as a heat source for water
desalination than fossil-fuel plants using oil or natural gas. But it said that costs could vary
according to the type of reactor used and its specific location, among other factors, requiring
further economic analysis. The next big step needs to be taken by the Department of Energy.
It should propose construction of a demonstration reactor for desalination. Production of large
amounts of fresh water would alleviate water shortages in the decades ahead with attendant
benefits to homeowners and businesses as well as the environment. Now is the time for the
Department of Energy, in concert with Georgia and other states, to determine how best to
proceed with nuclear desalination.
And, fossil fuels and other renewables do not solve

Ken Silverstein 07, award-winning journalist who is the editor-in-chief of EnergyBiz Insider,
published in more than 100 periodicals, over 20 years experience in energy sector, masters from
American University, Climate Change and Clean Water, 12-17-07,
http://www.energybiz.com/article/07/12/climate-change-and-clean-water?
quicktabs_4=2&quicktabs_11=1.
"Desalination is an energy-intensive process," says Meenakshi Jain of CDM & Environmental
Services and Positive Climate Care in India. In a story that ran in the Inderscience publication
International Journal of Nuclear Desalination, he highlights the energy problem facing regions
with little fresh water. "Over the long term, desalination with fossil energy sources would not
be compatible with sustainable development; fossil fuel reserves are finite and must be
conserved for other essential uses, whereas demands for desalted water would continue to
increase. Nuclear energy seawater desalination has a tremendous potential for the
production of freshwater." Jain emphasizes that renewable energy sources could help ease
water shortages. Wind, solar, and wave power may be used to generate electricity while also
carrying out desalination. That, in turn, could have a significant impact on reducing potential
increased greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly 40 million cubic meters of desalted water are
produced worldwide each day, says the International Atomic Energy Agency. Most of the
facilities to do so are located in the Middle East and North Africa and they use fossil fuels to
draw the steam or electricity they need to facilitate the process. But as environmental
concerns grow over greenhouse gas emissions and water needs rise, cleaner options that
have large-scale applications are necessary. The need is paramount. The demand for
drinking water grew six-fold in the 20th century and is expected to increase another 40
percent by 2025, according to the United Nations. Nuclear energy is the most feasible
method, the atomic agency adds. It points out that the technology of coupling nuclear energy
and desalination plants already has taken hold in Japan and Kazakhstan, where commercial
facilities have been operating since the 1970s. India is among countries seeking to expand the
base of national and international experience through a demonstration plant it is building.
Altogether, the agency is working with 20 nations to advance nuclear science and desalination.
Universal Issue Access to fresh water supplies is a universal issue. The United States is grappling
with the dilemma and so is Australia and France. But developing nations are having the toughest
time. The problems are exacerbated because of the fears of global warming. In an interview with
OnPoint, Paul Faeth, executive director the United Nations Foundation's Global Water Challenge
said that about 1.1 billion people don't have access to water and another 2.6 billion don't
have access to safe sanitation. He adds that about a third of all countries now have water
scarcity issues and that this level could rise to two-thirds in 20 years because of global warming.
Climate change not only affects temperatures but it also impacts water and the hydrologic cycle,
adds Faeth. "In those areas that are dry, it's going to be getting drier and wet areas getting wetter.
So you have people who are vulnerable are the first ones who are going to be affected. And for
those who don't have water now, they're facing the biggest challenge." The Inderscience
publication International Journal of Nuclear Desalination quotes scientists who say that solar,
wind and wave power are not cost effective fuel sources in the effort to create potable water.
At least one scientist there is quoted as saying that floating nuclear plants could help solve the
problem. Such plants could be permitted to operate offshore and where there is a dense
coastal population. They could be used to provide electricity and run a desalination plant
with the excess heat. It is estimated that a 300-megawatt nuclear plant would be required
to drive a desalination facility with a capacity of 1 million cubic meters of potable water a
day. That's enough water to support a population of between 3 or 4 million people. That
same population would require between 4,000 and 6,000 megawatts of installed capacity to meet
its electricity needs.
SMRs are specifically key to desalination allows for

efficient heat recovery from the ocean.
Mark Campagna and Otis Peterson, November 2010, Mark, Assistant Technical
Program Chair @ the American Nuclear Society, Otis, Ph.D. @ University of Illinois-Urbana
Champaign, Chief Technical Officer at IX Power, NON-ELECTRIC APPLICATIONS FOR
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS, American Nuclear Society, http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library
%5CAlternative%20Uses/2010%20-%20Non-Electric%20Applications%20for%20SMRs.pdf
1. LOW QUALITY POWER (ABOUT 100C) APPLICATIONS
At the low end of the energy quality spectrum are applications that only need temperatures
slightly above 100C. There are too many applications in this class to discuss in depth. The most
obvious such application is building heat for domestic, commercial and industrial uses. One of
the most important applications within this class is desalination of sea or other brackish
water for human or agricultural uses. Such desalination processes would be based on
distillation or related methods. Essentially all reactors can generate such temperatures. The
temptation here is to use the heat produced by the reactor to generate electricity first and design
the turbine generator system so the exiting steam is above 100C. Such designs reduce the
efficiency of the electrical power conversion process but, obviously, permitmultiple usesfor
the reactor power. As pointed out above, one of the major non-electrical applications of small
reactors is the desalination of ocean water for human or agricultural consumption. There are two
commonplace techniques for producing fresh water from salt water. One of those is reverseosmosis, a process that uses electricity to drive the high-pressure water pumps to force seawater
or brine through very fine filters. This process is popular for supplying drinking water for
limited volume human consumption. Because electrical generation is inherently less
efficient, larger process volume installations are often based on distillation principles. MultiStage Flash evaporation (MSF) thermal and Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane processes produce
about 85% of the fresh water generated by all desalination methods. However, the MSF
represents more than 84% of thermal process production, while RO represents more than 88% of
membrane process production. Distillation only needs low quality heat, which may be available
as a primary output of reactors or available as a component of co-generation of electricity and the
fresh water. Counter-flow geometries where the incoming cool ocean water condenses the
fresh-water steam and also cools all exiting water are quite efficient as the only heat losses
are imperfect insulation, auxiliary uses of some of the steam and inefficiencies in the heat
exchangers. The steam requirements for the MSF distillation process include low-pressure steam
for the brine heating and high-pressure steam for the steam-jet air ejector system to pull the
vacuum needed for deaeration. The low-pressure steam to the brine heater can be as low as 35
psig saturated, while the high-pressure steam to the steam-jet, air ejector can be as low as 150
psig. All distillation processes make use of the physical fact that when water is heated in a vessel
where the pressure is equal to its vapor pressure, the water will boil and vapor will be produced.
Boiling can occur at any seawater temperature depending on whether the vessel is pressurized or
under vacuum. MSF process makes use of the fact that water boils at lower and lower
temperatures as the pressure is reduced. A MSF desalination facility has a total of 24 to 30
stages arranged monotonically in order of the temperature and pressure. In each stage the water
and steam are in saturated equilibrium. The raw seawater enters the cold end of the cascade to
cool the steam condensers and the exiting water.A portion of the raw seawater is withdrawn and
deaerated before being heated to 230F (110C) for injection into the hot end of the cascade. The
amount of fresh water produced is only a small fraction of the seawater that passes through the
cascade. Most of the raw seawater that feeds the evaporator reject stages for cooling is returned to
the sea at elevated temperature. Also, a fraction of the brine in NOVEMBER 2010 4 DRAFT
Non-Electric Applications for Small Modular Reactors the last stage is returned to the sea with
elevated salt content as waste to control the concentration ratio. The increase in salt concentration
from the evaporation is not allowed to go over 1.5 to limit corrosion. A practical and optimized
MSF installation is much more complicated than this description. The cascade is divided into
two sections: heat recovery and heat rejection systems. There are separate components for
heating the brine and deaerating it. The seawater is chemically treated to limit corrosion
and scale formation, in addition to tube fouling. In order to minimize corrosion, the
physical components are constructed of combinations of titanium and copper-nickel alloys
for the condenser tubing and copper-nickel or stainless steel clad or lining for the
evaporator shell. Operating commercial facilities designed on these principles exhibit a
performance ratio, defined as a pound of product per 1,000 BTUs, between 8 and 9 (3.9
liters/MJ). The amount of energy used to produce a quantity of fresh-water is about one
tenth of what is required to boil that same amount of water. This order of magnitude
reduction in energy usage is a tribute to creative and careful engineering.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11003975/Mass-immigration-could-seewater-shortages-failing-hospitals-and-we-wont-feel-richer-says-Civitas.html
first, Nuclear desalination is critical to solve water crisis

Garry White 09, commodities editor at The Telegraph, Can nuclear solve the global water
crisis?, 12-20-09, The Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6851983/Can-nuclear-solve-the-globalwater-crisis.html.
As the global population expands, demand for water for agriculture and personal use will
increase dramatically, but there could be a solution that will produce clean drinking water
and help reduce carbon emissions as well. That process is nuclear desalination. Many areas
of the world are suffering from a water crisis and it's not just arid, developing countries
that are suffering. The Western US is particularly vulnerable and its water crisis is getting
more severe by the day. Las Vegas could be one of the first US cities to be hit by a serious water
shortage, some are even questioning whether it can survive at all. The city gets 90pc of its water
from Lake Mead, the body of water created by the Hoover Dam. The water in Lake Mead, and
the Colorado River which feeds it, has been falling for some time. It is slowly running dry due to
overuse. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography believes there is a 50pc chance that the lake
will be completely dry by 2021 if climate change continues as expected and future water usage is
not curtailed. Water is so important that, as a population grows and demand increases, there
is a strong chance of conflict in the future. According to the World Water Council, 260 river
basins are shared by two or more countries. "In the absence of strong institutions and
agreements, changes within a basin can lead to transboundary tensions," the Council said.
"When major projects proceed without regional collaboration, they can become a point of
conflicts, heightening regional instability." The World Water Council cites the Parana La Plata
in South America, the Aral Sea, the Jordan and the Danube as examples. It's not just tensions
between countries that are a potential problem. Civil unrest caused by scarcity has already
started. In India on December 3, one man was killed and dozens injured during a protest over
water rationing in Mumbai following the country's poor Monsoon. The prospect of further
water riots is very real. However, nuclear energy could help provide the solution for this
thorny issue. Oil-rich Middle Eastern nations are rushing to build new nuclear plants. Anwar
Gargash, a foreign affairs minister in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), said last month that
nuclear power was "best able" to meet future power demand in his country. Demand for
electricity is expected to double by 2020. This followed comments from Saudi Arabia, which said
it planned to generate up to a quarter of its electricity from nuclear power within the next 15
years. Everyone thinks the trend for oil-rich nations to move towards nuclear power generation is
about limiting domestic consumption so they can boost oil exports. However, that's just part of
the story. Saudi Arabia, for example, has very little water and global warming is likely to make
this situation much worse. This is a major problem because Saudi Arabia is about to see its
population explode. The overwhelming majority of the Saudi people are young. Almost 40pc of
its population is under the age of 14, with just 2.5pc being in the over 65 bracket. This means its
population is growing at about 2pc per year and as the young start to have families of their own,
the rate of population growth will increase. In fact, many of the nations that are predicted to have
the strongest growth in population over the next years are the areas where the water crisis is most
acute. For example, the UAE has the largest growth rate of any nation in the world at 3.69pc,
according to data compiled by the US government. Nuclear reactors can be used to generate
electricity but they can also be used to desalinate water. Nuclear desalination is not a new
idea it's a proven technology, thanks to Kazakhstan. A single nuclear reactor at Aktau on the
shore of the Caspian Sea successfully produced up to 135 megawatts of electricity and 80,000
cubic metres of potable water a day between 1972 and 1999, when it was closed at the end of the
reactor's life. Water has also been desalinated using nuclear reactors in India and Japan.
The problem with desalination is that it is very energy intensive. Most desalination today
uses fossil fuels, contributing to carbon emissions. However, because nuclear power
generation does not emit carbon, it is a clean and efficient way of producing the most
important commodity around. For countries experiencing rapid population growth, it could
be a lifesaver.
Second, developing an enhanced desalination policy is key

to US water leadership worldwide.
Marcus DuBois King, 10/15/2013, Professor @ Elliot School of International Affairs,
GWU, Water, U.S. Foreign Policy and American Leadership,
http://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/faculty/king-water-policyleadership.pdf
Water has been a vital component of U.S. international development strategy for decades.
However, the USG is not currently postured to deliver water-related assistance as efficiently
as possible or to expand considerations of water into other dimensions of foreign policy.
Efforts to address this problem are underway, but more could be done. For example, the 2010
Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy Review (QDDR) called for the inclusion of water
development projects as a critical element of a larger climate adaptation strategy. It
provided a roadmap for how the Department of State and USAID could work to integrate their
general development efforts. USAID has made outstanding progress in elevating global water
issues. In May 2013, the agency released its first ever Water and Development Strategy, a five
year plan to enhance global health and food security through a focus on water resources. The
strategy prioritizes local capacity building, strengthening partnerships, leveraging new
technologies and supporting innovative financing precisely the types of pioneering
approaches called for by the participants in our workshops. What remains to be seen is how
effectively the agency will implement the proposed cutting- edge approaches to achieving its
water and development priorities. Increased use of monitoring and evaluation techniques to
assess project impact and sustainability will be a good start. Appropriate measures of project
success provide essential guidance for other USG agencies to prioritize, plan for and
implement water security initiatives. USAIDs focus on water is a leading indicator that the
time is ripe for other organizations to prioritize global water- related needs. While the
QDDR and USAID water strategy recognize the importance of water as part of a suite of
development issues, they do not call for the type of vertical and horizontal integration of
water into all three dimensions of foreign policy, development, diplomacy and defense that
workshop participants discussed and that this report advocates for.16
And, the US is key to export models of water innovation

worldwide.
Marcus DuBois King, 10/15/2013, Professor @ Elliot School of International Affairs,
GWU, Water, U.S. Foreign Policy and American Leadership,
http://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/faculty/king-water-policyleadership.pdf
The United States is in a unique position to address the urgent challenge of global water
security. The animating principle of our workshops was to bring together constituencies often
for the first time to discuss how to avoid the stark prospects of near-term instability driven
by water scarcity and low water quality. Factors such as climate change and rapid
population growth increase the urgency of the issue. What became clear in the discussions is
that all participating organizations have specific capabilities that they can bring to the
table, and that politics favors action. While the specific findings and recommendations varied
according to the organizations at the table in each session, two strong common themes emerged.
The first was the importance of developing new approaches or vectors for change, such as
market-driven mechanisms and PPPs that are as inclusive as possible and especially
relevant at a time when USG financial resources are constrained. The second is the
importance of engaging the technical capacities resident in a raft of USG agencies and some
private sector organizations to provide data to water project implementers and host
governments. Both sessions identified specific potential contributions from groups that have
been less recognized in the broader water community, including faith- based organizations,
philanthropic institutions and military organizations such as the U.S. National Guard and U.S.
Army Reserve. Most of all, these sessions highlighted the upside of water challenges. The
findings and recommendations illuminate paths toward comprehensive national leadership
in global water security that bring to bear all of the nations capabilities. This encompasses
an array of diverse actors across the political spectrum, from each individual to the largest
multinational corporations and multilateral agencies, all of whom are capable of facilitating
rapid and positive change. All of the organizations represented at the workshop have the
opportunity to actualize the upside of water and pursue the common good, while strengthening
Americas unique global brand as an international leader and innovator. Above all, politics stops
at water. Systematically addressing global water challenges is an important and politically
feasible foundation for a renewed American foreign policy that foregrounds the needs of
future generations and human dignity. The United States is the worlds leader in providing
water security and will be expected to continue and increase that role. This can be best
achieved by a whole of U.S. approach that incorporates new stakeholders into all three
dimensions of foreign policy: development, diplomacy and defense.
That solves multiple scenarios for conflict most likely

starting point for war.
Geoffrey Lean 09, environment editor at The Independent, Water scarcity 'now bigger threat
than financial crisis', 3-15-09, The Independent,
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/water-scarcity-now-bigger-threatthan-financial-crisis-1645358.html.
Humanity is facing "water bankruptcy" as a result of a crisis even greater than the
financial meltdown now destabilising the global economy, two authoritative new reports show.
They add that it is already beginning to take effect, and there will be no way of bailing the earth
out of water scarcity. The two reports one by the world's foremost international economic
forum and the other by 24 United Nations agencies presage the opening tomorrow of the most
important conference on the looming crisis for three years. The World Water Forum, which will
be attended by 20,000 people in Istanbul, will hear stark warnings of how half the world's
population will be affected by water shortages in just 20 years' time, with millions dying and
increasing conflicts over dwindling resources. A report by the World Economic Forum, which
runs the annual Davos meetings of the international business and financial elite, says that lack of
water, will "soon tear into various parts of the global economic system" and "start to
emerge as a headline geopolitical issue". It adds: "The financial crisis gives us a stark
warning of what can happen if known economic risks are left to fester. We are living in a
water 'bubble' as unsustainable and fragile as that which precipitated the collapse in world
financial markets. We are now on the verge of bankruptcy in many places with no way of paying
the debt back." The Earth a blue-green oasis in the limitless black desert of space has a
finite stock of water. There is precisely the same amount of it on the planet as there was in the
age of the dinosaurs, and the world's population of more than 6.7 billion people has to share the
same quantity as the 300 million global inhabitants of Roman times. Water use has been
growing far faster than the number of people. During the 20th century the world population
increased fourfold, but the amount of freshwater that it used increased nine times over.
Already 2.8 billion people live in areas of high water stress, the report calculates, and this will
rise to 3.9 billion more than half the expected population of the world by 2030. By that
time, water scarcity could cut world harvests by 30 per cent equivalent to all the grain
grown in the US and India even as human numbers and appetites increase. Some 60 per
cent of China's 669 cities are already short of water. The huge Yellow River is now left with
only 10 per cent of its natural flow, sometimes failing to reach the sea altogether. And the glaciers
of the Himalayas, which act as gigantic water banks supplying two billion people in Asia, are
melting ever faster as global warming accelerates. Meanwhile devastating droughts are
crippling Australia and Texas. The World Water Development Report, compiled by 24 UN
agencies under the auspices of Unesco, adds that shortages are already beginning to constrain
economic growth in areas as diverse and California, China, Australia, India and Indonesia. The
report, which will be published tomorrow, also expects water conflicts to break out in the
Middle East, Haiti, Sri Lanka, Colombia and other countries. "Conflicts about water can
occur at all scales," it warns. "Hydrological shocks" brought about by climate change are
likely to "increase the risk of major national and international security threats".
1AC Nuclear Leadership

US nuclear leadership is diminishing quickly expanding
fossil fuels, market forces and international perception
are key.
Americas nuclear energy industry is in decline. Low natural gas prices, financing hurdles,
failure to find a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, reactions to the
Fukushima accident in Japan, and other factors are hastening the day when existing U.S.
reactors become uneconomic, while making it increasingly difficult to build new ones. Two
generations after the United States took this wholly new and highly sophisticated technology from laboratory experiment to successful
commercialization, our nation is in danger of losing an industry of unique strategic importance
and unique promise for addressing the environmental and energy security demands of the
future. The decline of the U.S. nuclear energy industry could be much more rapid than
policymakers and stakeholders anticipate. With 102 operating reactors and the worlds
largest base of installed nuclear capacity, it has been widely assumed that the United States
even without building many new plantswould continue to have a large presence in this
industry for decades to come. Instead, current market conditions are such that growing numbers
of units face unprecedented financial pressures and could be retired early. Early retirements, coupled
with scheduled license expirations and dim prospects for new construction, point to diminishing domestic opportunities for U.S.
nuclear energy firms. The outlook is much different in China, India, Russia, and other countries,
where governments are looking to significantly expand their nuclear energy commitments .
Dozens of new entrants plan ix on adding nuclear technology to their generating mix, furthering the spread of nuclear materials
and know-how around the globe. It is in our nations best interest that U.S. companies meet a significant share of this demand for
nuclear technologynot simply because of trade and employment benefits, but because exports of U.S.-origin technology and
materials are accompanied by conditions that protect our nonproliferation interests. Yet U .S. firms are currently at a
competitive disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive

export policies. U.S. efforts to facilitate peaceful uses of nuclear technology helped build a
global nuclear energy infrastructurebut that infrastructure could soon be dominated by
countries with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial presence in new nuclear
markets, Americas ability to influence nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors
worldwide is bound to diminish. In this context, federal action to reverse the U.S. nuclear
industrys impending decline is a national security imperative. The United States cannot afford to
become irrelevant in a new nuclear age. This brief outlines why.
SMRs theyre key to the nuclear industry and US

leadership post-Fukishima, but federal investment is a
critical first step
Kent Harrington, 1/5/2012, Producer at American Institute for Chemical Engineers,
citing study from University of Chicago, Study Finds Small Modular Reactors Could Revive US
Nuclear Industry, American Institute for Chemical Engineers,
http://chenected.aiche.org/energy/study-finds-small-modular-reactors-could-revive-us-nuclearindustry/
The sudden Fukushima nuclear catastrophe has had an enormous impact on the global nuclear
industry. Japans continuing human, environmental, and economic disaster appeared to cause
the touted 2011 US nuclear renaissance, backed by loan guarantees from the Obama
Administration, to grind to a halt. And then watching Germany, followed by Switzerland, vow to
switch to renewables, the future for US nuclear energy looked pretty darkturn the lights off
on the way out, so to speak. A contrarian nuclear future Now, a newly released study from the
Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago finds that small modular reactors
(SMR) may hold the key to an actual renaissance of U.S. nuclear power (read whole study):
Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the
United States, concluded the study, led by Robert Rosner, director of the Energy Policy Institute
at the University of Chicago. Through his work as the former director of Argonne National
Laboratory, Rosner became involved in nuclear and renewable energy technology development.
It would be a huge stimulus for high-value job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear
reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima
world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste.
This represents a huge shift from last centurys large-reactor build-out, which eventually
petered out and stagnated. Before construction stopped, new reactors had grown larger and
larger as utilities tried to reduce costs through economies of scale. But now the trend may be
toward what SMR proponents call economies of small scale. Creating value through
standardized, mass produced, small modular reactors. Energy Secretary Steven Chu agrees:
Voting with their balance sheets This trend had already begun before the Fukushima disaster. A
couple of salient examples from 2010: rising reactor costs had already created friction between
partners CPS Energy and NRG Energy Inc., who had sued each other when CPS, a city-owned
utility in San Antonio balked about investing in a new nuclear plant that would raise customers
rates. Then, as if the industrys nuclear renaissance wasnt already gasping for air, it swooned
into a coma after the collapse of Constellation Energys plan to build a third reactor on
Marylands Chesapeake Bay with French utility EDF. mPower SMR But while those large
reactor projects were falling apart, the small modular reactor trend was beginning to take
shape. The Texas-sized Fluor Corporation, which had built large reactors in the 70s and 80s,
spent $3.5 million for the majority stake in small module reactor builder NuScale. Then Bechtel,
another engineering giant, formed an alliance with Babcock & Wilcox, buying into its innovative
modular nuclear technology called mPower. Both investments were big votes of confidence.
Comparing large and small reactors The SMR report, funded by the DOE and authored by
Rosner and Stephen Goldberg, was rolled out on Dec. 1, at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. CSIS president and CEO John Hamre started off the press conference by
reconfirming that economic issues have hindered the construction of new large-scale
reactors in the United States. You can watch the long version of the press conference video
below: The chief competitor The report assessed the economic feasibility of classical,
gigawatt-scale reactors and the possible new generation of modular reactors. The latter
would have a generating capacity of 600 megawatts or less, would be factory-built as
modular components, and then shipped to their desired location for assembly. According to
the study, few companies can afford the long wait to see a return on a $10 billion investment
on a large-scale nuclear plant. This is a real problem, but the epoch of the small modular
reactor offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies with a much shorter timeline.
The report also finds that natural gas will be the chief competitor of nuclear power generated
by small modular reactors, but predicting the future of the energy market a decade from now
is a risky proposition, (implying that prices could easily go higher) Rosner said. Were talking
about natural-gas prices not today but 10, 15 years from now when these kinds of reactors could
actually hit the market. Markets that cant use gigawatt-scale plants The economic viability of
small modular reactors will depend partly on how quickly manufacturers can learn to build
them. The faster you learn, the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point
where you actually start making money faster, Rosner noted. Of course, this assumes that SMRs
are all factory built and delivered to the reactor site by rail or truck. Then on-site construction
would never be able to compete. Graphic: Hauling NuScale 45 MWe Small Modular Reactor
Small modular reactors would appeal to any market that couldnt accommodate gigawattscale plants (particularly developing countries with smaller or older grids), or those in the
US currently served by aging, 200- to 400-megawatt coal plants, which are likely to be phased
out during the next decade, Rosner said. An unknown factor that will affect the future of these
plants would be the terms of any new clean-air regulations that might be enacted in the next year.
An important safety aspect of small modular reactors is that they are designed to eliminate
the need for human intervention during an emergency. In some of the designs, Rosner
explained, the entire heat load at full power can be carried passively by thermal convection.
Theres no need for pumps. Getting the first modular reactors built will probably require
the federal government to step in as the first customer. That is a policy issue, though, that
awaits further consideration. Its a case that has to be argued out and thought carefully about,
Rosner said. Theres a long distance between what were doing right now and actually
implementing national policy.
<<need another impact>>
Specifically, An SMR lead revival of the industry restores

US nuclear leadership which controls proliferation risks
Loudermilk, Senior Energy Associate @ NDU, 11Micah J. Loudermilk, Senior
Associate for the Energy %26 Environmental Security Policy program with The Institute for
National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, "Small Nuclear Reactors and US
Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and Costs," Journal of Energy Security, May 2011,
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content%26view=article%26id=314:small-nuclearreactors-and-us-energy-security-concepts-capabilities-and-costs
%26catid=116:content0411%26Itemid=375Combating proliferation with US leadership Reactor safety itself notwithstanding, many
argue that the scattering of small reactors around the world would invariably lead to
increased proliferation problems as nuclear technology and know-how disseminates around
the world. Lost in the argument is the fact that this stance assumes that US decisions on
advancing nuclear technology color the world as a whole. In reality, regardless of the US
commitment to or abandonment of nuclear energy technology, many countries (notably
China) are blazing ahead with research and construction, with 55 plants currently under
construction around the worldthough Fukushima may cause a temporary lull. Since Three
Mile Island, the US share of the global nuclear energy trade has declined precipitously as
talent and technology begin to concentrate in countries more committed to nuclear power.
On the small reactor front, more than 20 countries are examining the technology and the IAEA
estimates that 40-100 small reactors will be in operation by 2030. Without US leadership, new
nations seek to acquire nuclear technology turn to countries other than the US who may not
share a deep commitment to reactor safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US
leadership globally on nonproliferation requires a vibrant American nuclear industry. This
will enable the US to set and enforce standards on nuclear agreements, spent fuel
reprocessing, and developing reactor technologies. As to the small reactors themselves, the
designs achieve a degree of proliferation-resistance unmatched by large reactors. Small
enough to be fully buried underground in independent silos, the concrete surrounding the
reactor vessels can be layered much thicker than the traditional domes that protect
conventional reactors without collapsing. Coupled with these two levels of superior physical
protection is the traditional security associated with reactors today. Most small reactors also are
factory-sealed with a supply of fuel inside. Instead of refueling reactors onsite, SMRs are
returned to the factory, intact, for removal of spent fuel and refueling. By closing off the fuel
cycle, proliferation risks associated with the nuclear fuel running the reactors are mitigated and
concerns over the widespread distribution of nuclear fuel allayed.
SMRs are key to negotiation pressure for nonproliferation

- they are more desirable than other nuclear systems
Thats a good question. One of the things that concerned me most in the nonproliferation
area was the fact that the United States had lost a lot of its ability to export nuclear goods
and services under U.S. export licenses. Thats important to nonproliferation, because its
through negotiations with other countries export controls of nuclear technology that a lot
of our goals regarding proliferation risk management are met. By that I mean that if youre
not exporting anything, youre not negotiating anything, and youre not really establishing a
standard for safety, ecurity, and proliferation risk management around the world. Then we
evaluated how to regain some of that capability, and small modular reactors became obvious for
two reasons. One is that you could probably speed up the construction and licensing process
by factory manufacturing and turn them out much more quickly than large reactors. And
the other is that for emerging nations, most developing countries could not absorb large
nuclear systems, and smaller systems would be more acceptable to them and more
affordable. They may cost a little more per megawatt, but the capital coststhe upfront costs
would be significantly less. In addition, the economy of scale you possibly get with a large plant
doesnt make any sense if you cant afford it.
And Nuclear prolif guarantees global catastrophe

Glennon 13 Michel J Glennon is the author of numerous articles on constitutional and
international law as well as several books and the professor of international Law at the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, in Medford, Massachusetts. Pre-empting
Proliferation: International Law, Morality, and Nuclear Weapons, The European Journal of
International Law, 2013.
In truth, because the track record, happily, is bare,
no one knows whether conventional war

between nuclear powers would risk nuclear escalation .5 Nonetheless, I share the
belief of Scott Sagan,6 Bruce Blair,7 and others that the danger of nuclear escalation in such
circumstances is not negligible. The claim that peace among the nuclear powers has been the product
of8 their nuclear arsenals assumes without evidence that other factors have not contributed to these decades of peace.
Deterrence no doubt has played a role, but surely the story is a bit
more
complex. Whatever stability the possession of nuclear weapons
might provide at the margins is, in any event, likely to be ofset by
the risks entailed by proliferation. The more states that acquire nuclear weapons the more states will
want them; the more states that want them the more available will be the technology and fissile materials needed to make them, and
the greater will be the chance that those weapons will be used, rationally or irrationally. Use by one state
against another would break the taboo against further use and risk a
world of nuclear armed anarchy.9 Use by terrorists could generate a
witch hunt to ferret out and punish the perpetrators that would
crack the legal and political foundations of liberal democracy . Any
use would almost surely cause massive, horrific sufering. Nuclear
proliferation therefore poses a threat to both the United States and
the international community.
1AC Solvency
SMRs Leadership Solvency - Federal investment is key to
promote US clean energy leadership and cresate a viable
alternative to coal-based production.
Merv Fertel, 4/08/2014, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy
Institute, vice president of technical programs at the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, Why
DOE Should Back SMR Development, http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-doeshould-back-smr-development.html
Nuclear energy is an essential source of base-load electricity and 64 percent of the United
States greenhouse gas-free electricity production. Without it, the United States cannot meet
either its energy requirements or the goals established in the Presidents Climate Action Plan. In
the decades to come, we predict that the countrys nuclear fleet will evolve to include not only
large, advanced light water reactors like those operating today and under construction in
Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, but also a complementary set of smaller, modular
reactors. Those reactors are under development today by companies like Babcock &Wilcox
(B&W), NuScale and others that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop nextgeneration reactor concepts. Those companies have innovative designs and are prepared to
absorb the lions share of design and development costs, but the federal government should
also play a significant role given the enormous promise of small modular reactor technology
for commercial and other purposes. Most important, partnerships between government and
the private sector will enable the full promise of this technology to be available in time to
ensure U.S. leadership in energy, the environment, and the global nuclear market. The
Department of Energys Small Modular Reactor (SMR) program is built on the successful
Nuclear Power 2010 program that supported design certification of the Westinghouse AP-1000
and General Electric ESBWR designs. Today, Southern Co. and South Carolina Electric & Gas
are building four AP-1000s for which they submitted license applications to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in 1998. Ten years earlier, in the early years of the Nuclear Power 2010
program, it was clear that there would be a market for the AP-1000 and ESBWR in the United
States and overseas, but it would have been impossible to predict which companies would
build the first ones, or where they would be built, and it was even more difficult to predict
the robust international market for that technology. The SMR program is off to a
promising start. To date, B&Ws Generation mPower joint venture has invested $400 million in
developing its mPower design; NuScale approximately $200 million in its design. Those
companies have made those investments knowing they will not see revenue for approximately 10
years. That is laudable for a private company, but, in order to prepare SMRs for early
deployment in the United States and to ensure U.S. leadership worldwide, investment by
the federal government as a cost-sharing partner is both necessary and prudent. Some have
expressed concern about the potential market and customers for SMR technology given Babcock
& Wilcoxs recent announcement that it will reduce its level of investment in the mPower
technology, and thus the pace of development. This decision reflects B&Ws revised market
assessment, particularly the slower-than-expected growth in electricity demand in the United
States following the recession. But that demand will eventually occur, and the American
people are best-served in terms of cost and reliability of service when the electric power
industry maintains a diverse portfolio of electricity generating technologies. The industry
will need new, low-carbon electricity options like SMRs because Americas electric
generating technology options are becoming more challenging. For example: While coalfired generation is a significant part of our base-load generation, coal-fired generation faces
increasing environmental restrictions, including the likelihood of controls on carbon and
uncertainty over the commercial feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration. The U.S.
has about 300,000 MW of coal-fired capacity, and the consensus is that about one-fifth of that
will shut down by 2020 because of environmental requirements. In addition, development of
coal-fired projects has stalled: Less than 1,000 megawatts of new coal-fired capacity is under
construction. Natural gas-fired generation is a growing and important component of our
generation portfolio and will continue to do so given our abundant natural gas resources.
However, prudence requires that we do not become overly dependent on any given energy
source particularly in order to maintain long-term stable pricing as natural gas demand grows in
the industrial sector and for LNG exports. Renewables will play an increasingly large role but, as
intermittent sources, cannot displace the need for large-scale, 24/7 power options. Given this
challenging environment, the electric industry needs as many electric generating options as
possible, particularly zero-carbon options. Even at less-than-one-percent annual growth in
electricity demand, the Energy Information Administration forecasts a need for 28 percent more
power by 2040. Thats the equivalent of 300 one-thousand-megawatt power plants. Americas
100 nuclear plants will begin to reach 60 years of operation toward the end of the next
decade. In the five years between 2029 and 2034, over 29,000 megawatts of nuclear generating
capacity will reach 60 years. Unless those licenses are extended for a second 20-year period, that
capacity must be replaced. If the United States hopes to contain carbon emissions from the
electric sector, it must be replaced with new nuclear capacity. The runway to replace that
capacity is approximately 10 years long, so decisions to replace that capacity with either large,
advanced light-water reactors or SMRs must be taken starting in 2019 and 2020 approximately
the time that the first SMR designs should be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The electricity markets are in a period of profound change. New energy sources are
becoming available, new fossil, renewable, demand-side and nuclear technologies are
preparing to enter the market. The very structure of the markets themselves is changing.
Nuclear energy, because it runs 24/7 without producing greenhouse gas, will play an important
part in that market. SMR technology, in particular, needs to be developed sooner rather
than later. That way, in about 10 years, we can answer the questions about which companies will
build those plants and where.
SMRs PPP Solvency Private Sector will say yes its

only a question of government commitment.
Regarding US nuclear manufacturing capability, have companies stepped up to say they want to
be part of SMR parts and components development? Absolutely. Weve seen a real interest by a
number of companies that want to be part of these projects. We recently participated in a very
large SMR conference in Colum- bia, S.C., and we had a topical meeting at the last ANS
conference that drew quite a crowd, including a lot of the parts and components industry that
currently exists in the United States and now performs quality nuclear work for the Navy.
Most of those components are still manufactured in this country. So yes, there is a lot of
interest. We are regaining our N Stampquali- fied capabilities because the MOX plant requires all of those standards to be met. The MOX plant is going to be licensed by the NRC,
and as part of that, a lot of supplier capability has been developed in the Unit- ed States that
will also be applied to these small reactors.
\
Government investment in OSMRs are key to private

sector involvement
John Licata 4-27-14, Founder & Chief Energy Strategist of Blue Phoenix Inc, author of
Lessons from Frankenstorm: Investing for Future Power Disruptions, over fifteen years of
commodity research experience, Can Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Find Their Sea Legs?,
The Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/27/can-small-modular-nuclearreactors-find-their-sea.aspx.
Nuclear power plants do bring jobs to rural areas, and in some cases they actually boost local
housing prices since these plants create jobs. However, whether or not you believe nuclear
power does or does not emit harmful radiation, many people would likely opt to not live
right next door to a nuclear power plant facility if they had the choice. Today, they may not
even need to consider such a move thanks to a floating plant concept coming out of MIT,
which largely builds on the success of the U.S. Army of Corp Engineers' MH-1A floating
nuclear reactor, installed on the Sturgis, a vessel that provided power to military and
civilians around the Panama Canal. The Sturgis was decommissioned, but only because
there was ample power generation on land. So the viability of a floating nuclear plant does
make a lot of sense. Presently the only floating nuclear plant is being constructed in Russia
(expected to be in service in two years). However, that plant is slated to be moored on a
barge in a harbor. That differs from MIT's idea to put a 200 MWe reactor on a floating platform
roughly six miles out to sea. The problem with the floating reactor idea or land-based SMR
version is most investors are hard-pressed to fork over money needed for a nuclear build-out
that could cost billions of dollars and take over a decade to complete. That very problem is today
plaguing the land-based mPower SMR program of The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (NYSE: BWC ) .
Also, although the reactors would have a constant cooling source in the ocean water, I'd like
to see studies that show that sea life is not disrupted. Then there is always the issue with security
and power lines to the mainland which needs to be addressed. At a time when reducing global
warming is becoming a hotly debated topic by the IPCC, these SMRs (land or sea based) can
help reduce our carbon footprint if legislation would allow them to proceed. Instead, the
government is taking perfectly good cathedral-sized nuclear power plants offline, something
they will likely come to regret in coming years from an economic and environmental
perspective. Just ask the Germans. SMRs can produce dependable baseload power that is
more affordable for isolated communities, and they can be used in remote areas by energy
and metals production companies while traditional reactors cannot. So the notion of
plopping SMRs several miles offshore so they can withstand tsunami swells is really
interesting. If the concept can actually gain momentum that would help Babcock, Westinghouse,
and NuScale Power. I would also speculate that technology currently being used in the oil and
gas drilling sector, possibly even from the robotics industry, could be integrated into
offshore light water nuclear designs for mooring, maintenance, and routine operational
purposes. In today's modern world, we have a much greater dependence on consumer
electronics, we are swapping our dependence of foreign oil with a growing reliance for
domestic natural gas, and we face increasing pressures to combat climate change here at
home as well as meet our own 2020 carbon goals. With that said, we need to think longer
term and create domestic clean energy industries that can foster new jobs, help keep the
power on even when blackouts occur and produce much less carbon at both the private and
public sector levels. Therefore to me, advancing the SMR industry on land or by sea is a nice
way to fight our archaic energy paradigm and move our energy supply into a modern era.
Yet without the government's complete commitment to support nuclear power via
legislation and a much needed expedited certification process, the idea of a floating SMR
plant will be another example of wasted energy innovation that could simply get buried at sea.
The plan uses established technology and does not harm

the environment
Michael Abrams 14, Independent Writer with Masters in Engineering and Applied Sciences at
Yale, Analyst at Fortress Investment Group, July 2014, Offshoring Nuclear
Plants, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, https://www.asme.org/engineeringtopics/articles/nuclear/offshoring-nuclear-plants.
The plan also eliminates worry about the reactor destroying habitat by warming waters.
The reactor would draw water from the bottom, and after cooling, would be discharged at
the same ambient temperatures as water at the surface. According to Buongiorno, marine life
would be no more disturbed by the rig than they would be by a cruise ship. For spent fuel,
the gap can also be flooded with fresh water from the condensate storage tank during
refueling operations. Refueling would be performed every four to five years, and spent fuel
assemblies transferred to the onboard spent fuel pool, which has storage capacity up to the
plant's lifetime, with a passive decay heat removal system that uses the ocean as its ultimate
heat sink. It's humans who would most likely to be disturbed by the idea of a floating
reactor. But Buongiorno is quick to point out that the elements of his plant are not that novel.
"One of the selling points is that it is a combination of established technologies," he says,
"We don't need a new reactor, we don't need any new material, we don't need anything that
is high risk for development.
SMR 2AC
2AC Navy
Nuclear ships good for the Navy key to readiness and
mobility.
Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include nuclear propulsion. The House
version of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 calls for all future major combatant vessels to
be powered by an integrated nuclear power and propulsion system; the Senate version does not.
While Congress must be careful in dictating how America's armed forces are resourced, it also
has a constitutional mandate "to provide and maintain a Navy." Although nuclear-powered
ships have higher upfront costs, their many advantages make a larger nuclear navy critical
for protecting national security interests in the 21st century. Nuclear Propulsion's Unique
Benefits As the defense authorization bill is debated, Members of the House and Senate should
consider the following features of nuclear propulsion: Unparalleled Flexibility. A nuclear
surface ship brings optimum capability to bear. A recent study by the Navy found the
nuclear option to be superior to conventional fuels in terms of surge ability, moving from
one theater to another, and staying on station. Admiral Kirkland Donald, director of the Navy
Nuclear Propulsion Program, said in recent congressional testimony, "Without the
encumbrances of fuel supply logistics, our nuclear-powered warships can get to areas of
interest quicker, ready to enter the fight, and stay on station longer then their fossil-fueled
counterparts." High-Power Density. The high density of nuclear power, i.e., the amount of
volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high
impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft, remote-operated and autonomous vehicles, and
weapons. When compared to its conventional counterpart, a nuclear aircraft carrier can carry
twice the amount of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons, and 300,000 cubic feet of
additional space (which would be taken up by air intakes and exhaust trunks in gas turbinepowered carriers). This means that ships can get to station faster and deliver more impact, which
will be critical to future missions. This energy supply is also necessary for new, powerintensive weapons systems like rail-guns and directed-energy weapons as well as for the
powerful radar that the Navy envisions. Real-Time Response . Only a nuclear ship can
change its mission and respond to a crisis in real-time. On September 11, 2001, the USS
Enterprise--then on its way home from deployment--responded to news of the terrorist attacks by
rerouting and entering the Afghan theater. Energy Independence. The armed forces have
acknowledged the vulnerability that comes from being too dependent on foreign oil. Delores
Etter,Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, said in recent
congressional testimony, "[We] take seriously the strategic implications of increased fossil
fuel independence." The Navy's use of nuclear propulsion for submarines and aircraft
carriers already saves 11 million barrels of oil annually. Using nuclear propulsion for all
future major surface combatants will make the Navy more energy independent.
Survivability. U.S. forces are becoming more vulnerable as other nations become more
technologically and tactically sophisticated. Expanding America's nuclear navy is critical to
staying a step ahead of the enemy. A nuclear ship has no exhaust stack, decreasing its
visibility to enemy detection; it requires no fuel supply line, assuring its ability to maneuver
over long distances; and it produces large amounts of electricity, allowing it to power massive
radars and new hi-tech weaponry. Force Enhancement. Though effective, modern aircraft
carriers still depend on less capable fossil-fueled counterparts in the battle group.
Increasing the number of nuclear surface ships would increase the capability of U.S. naval
forces to operate both independently and as part of a battle-group. Superiority on the Seas.
Policymakers have taken for granted the United States' superiority on the seas for many
years. This has led to a decline in America's overall naval force structure and opened the
door for foreign navies to potentially control critical blue-water regions. Expanding the
nuclear navy will allow the United States to maintain its maritime superiority well into the 21st
century. Environmentally Clean Source of Energy. Congress is considering placing CO2
restrictions on all federal government activities, including the Pentagon's. This mandate would be
highly detrimental to the armed forces. More people are starting to realize the oftenoverlooked environmental benefits of a nuclear navy. Expanding nuclear power would help
to achieve many of the objectives of a CO2 mandate in addition to increasing America's
military capability. Unlike a conventionally powered ship, which emits carbon dioxide and
other pollutants into the atmosphere, a nuclear ship is largely emissions-free. America's Nuclear
Shipbuilding Industrial Base Some have erroneously argued that America's industrial base is
inadequate to support a nuclear cruiser. Additional nuclear shipbuilding can not only be
absorbed by the current industrial base but also will allow it to work more efficiently. That
said, Congress could consider the option of expanding the infrastructure at a later date by
licensing additional nuclear production facilities and shipyards should further expansion be
necessary. America's shipyards are not operating at full capacity. Depending on the vendor,
product, and service, the industrial base is currently operating at an average capacity of
approximately 65 percent. Additionally, Navy leaders have testified that without further
investments, their training infrastructure is adequate to handle the influx of additional
personnel necessary to support an expansion of nuclear power. Construction of additional
ships would not be limited to the nuclear shipbuilding yards. Modules could be produced
throughout the country and assembled at nuclear-certified yards. Another alternative might be to
build the ship in a non-nuclear yard and then transport it to a nuclear yard where the reactor can
be installed. The work would be spread throughout the aircraft carrier and submarine industrial
bases. Today, the aircraft carrier industrial base consists of more than 2,000 companies in 47
states. Likewise, the submarine industrial base consists of more than 4,000 companies in 47
states.
This military power is key to hegemony

Conway, Roughead, and Allen, 07- *General of U.S. Marine Corps and Commandant of
the Marine Corps, **Admiral of U.S. Navy and Chief of Naval Operations, ***Admiral
of U.S. Coast Guard and Commandant of the Coast Guard (*James Conway, **Gary
Roughead, ***Thad Allen, "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower",
Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard,
http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf)
This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore. The expeditionary character and
versatility of maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric advantage of enlarging or contracting its military footprint in areas
where access is denied or limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military forces overseas often has unintended economic,
social or political repercussions. The
sea is a vast maneuver space, where the presence of

maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions dictate to enable flexible approaches
to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of conflicts. The speed, flexibility, agility
and scalability of maritime forces provide 6755 joint or combined force
commanders a range of options for responding to crises. Additionally, integrated
maritime operations, either within formal alliance structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more
informal arrangements (such as the Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful messages to would-be
aggressors that we will act with others to ensure collective security and prosperity.
United States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and
citizens from direct attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our
security and prosperity are inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime
forces will be deployed to protect and sustain the peaceful global system comprised
of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and
governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent presence, and operational flexibility inherent in U.S. seapower to
accomplish six key tasks, or strategic imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we wish to
demonstrate to our friends and allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S.
maritime forces will be characterized by regionally concentrated, forward-deployed
task forces with the combat power to limit regional conflict, deter major power war,
and should deterrence fail, win our Nations wars as part of a joint or combined
campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will be globally distributed in
order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain cooperative
relationships with an expanding set of international partners, and prevent or
mitigate disruptions and crises. Credible combat power will be continuously
postured in the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our
vital interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing commitment to
regional security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and peer
competitors. This combat power can be selectively and rapidly repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere.
These forces will be sized and postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives: Limit regional conflict with
forward deployed, decisive maritime power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the area of
conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across borders, pandemics, and the
interruption of vital resources are all possible when regional crises erupt. While this
strategy advocates a wide dispersal of networked maritime forces, we cannot be
everywhere, and we cannot act to mitigate all regional conflict. Where conflict
threatens the global system and our national interests, maritime forces will be ready
to respond alongside other elements of national and multi-national power, to give
political leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation and de-escalation.
Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready provide the Nations primary
forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they provide the means for this Nation to
respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in
plain sight, maritime forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure
friends and allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while working
to sustain the global order. Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleetships, aircraft, Marine
forces, and shore-based fleet activitiescapable of selectively controlling the seas, projecting power ashore, and protecting friendly
forces and civilian populations from attack.Deter major power war. No
other disruption is as potentially

disastrous to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and
extension of this Nations comparative seapower advantage is a key component of
deterring major power war. While war with another great power strikes many as
improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively
deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of
maritime forcesour lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome
barriers to access, and operational agilityprovide the joint commander with a
range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a
credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally,

unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
US primacy prevents global conflict diminishing power creates a vacuum that
causes transition wars in multiple places
Brooks et al 13 [Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at
Dartmouth College.G. John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and
International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is also a Global
Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University.William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster
Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. Don't Come Home,
America: The Case against Retrenchment, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 751,http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00107]
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far
more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States
overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action.
Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating
expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others
and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with
influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the
American Pacifier is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security
competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive wartemptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional
hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit?
Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent
dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is
connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future
counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasias security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is
impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first
response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of
anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense
dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasias major states
could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without theAmerican pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship,
particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point tosuch as democratic governance or dense
institutional linkagesare either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give
decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security
effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great
power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU
defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe
that is
incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the
region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in
which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about
the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence?
Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins toswing toward pessimists concerned
that states currently backed by Washington notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia
might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And
concerning East Asia, pessimismregarding the regions prospects without the American
pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South
Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could
stoke a destabilizing reaction from China . It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and
Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by astill-engaged United States. 75 The
second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realisms sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its
conception of state preferences. Defensive realisms optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much
dependent on itsparticularand highly restrictiveassumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of
its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption
that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks
on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly
distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research
across the social and

other sciences, however,undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for
security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and theyengage in trade-offs among the various
objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and
varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in
highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In
sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences
to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S.
retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at

least some of the worlds key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship.
Offensive realism predicts thatthe withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a
competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing,
crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond
the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive
behavior, possibly including regional great power war).
2AC Competitiveness
SMRs are key to competitiveness revitalizes shipyards.
Nuclear powered vessels have inherently lower operating costs compared to conventional
vessels. The United States cannot build a conventionally powered ship that is cheaper than one
built in a foreign shipyard because there is no operating cost advantage for the U.S.-built ship.
There is, however , a significant operating cost advantage to nuclear power, which may be
enough to make American shipyards competitive. There are several areas where the U.S.
could gain the upper hand in the development of nuclear powered commercial vessels, which
no other countries at present seem to be pursuing at all. They are: Construction of marine
reactors, Refueling and maintenance of nuclear powered ships, Manning and training of
nuclear merchant ship crews, and Construction of nuclear powered commercial ships. The
first two areas will always require detail and expertise and are activities that cannot be
offshored for cheaper labor. The United States current experience with the refueling of
nuclear reactors in shipyards will allow U.S. shipyards to gain the productivity they need to
reduce their costs and achieve competitiveness in that area. The latter potential, that of
building nuclear powered commercial ships in U.S. shipyards, requires further elaboration. The
reason for Americas uncompetitive, surprisingly overpriced shipbuilding costs compared to
foreign shipyards is not just higher labor and materials costs (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2011). It is a combination of lack of productivity and inefficiencies in the corporate and labor
structures (Hansen M., 2012). In some cases, the maintaining of high overheads to acquire
complex naval contracts may also negatively affect certain shipyards abilities to perform
commercial work. 11 Nuclear powered ships could potentially be built in U.S. shipyards and
carry the U.S. flag because their operating costs are inherently lower compared to fossil
fueled vessels. Along with this, there is an environmental advantage associated with nuclear
power in the arctic for which a premium could be paid. By making the most of these cost
advantages, a series of nuclear powered ships could be designed and built in order to give
American shipyards enough orders to increase their productivity and reduce their costs,
allowing subsequent nuclear powered vessels, ranging from bulk carriers to container ships,
to be even more competitive against their foreign counterparts.
U.S. economic supremacy prevents several scenarios for nuclear war

Friedberg and Schoenfeld, 2008 [Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princetons
Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel,
Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, The Dangers of a Diminished
America, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html]
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial
architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use
of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on
foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile,
traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been
extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly
down the road to chaos.
Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give
cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The
stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for
Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there
are shades of the

1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed
to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the
crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue
states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment
of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly
rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the
Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic
performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even
more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign
markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country
where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this
is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from
internal travails with external adventures.
2AC AT: Politics
2AC AT: TDevelopment
2AC AT: CPs
2AC AT: Terrorism DA

Turn-SMRs reduce terrorist attacks
Todd Woody, April 17, 2014, Todd Woody is an environmental and technology journalist based in
California. He has written for The New York Times and Quartz, and was previously an editor and
writer at Fortune, Forbes, and Business 2.0, Could a Floating Nuclear Power Plant Prevent
Another Fukushima?, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-floatingnuclear-power-plant-for-japan/360747/
A group of MIT scientists want to revive the nuclear industry in the post-Fukushima era by
moving it offshore. Literally. In a paper to be presented at a conference this week, the MIT
researchers argue that the way to make nuclear power plants impervious to earthquakes
and tsunamis is to build them in shipyards and then tow the structures five to nine miles out
to sea to the deep ocean. These Offshore Small Modular Reactors (OSMR) would just generate
300 megawatts of electricity or less but would eliminate the possibility of land contamination
and public exposure from severe accidents, and reducing the risk from terrorist threats,
wrote the papers lead author Jacopo Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science and
engineering at MIT. The Great Energy Shift Part Two An Atlantic Special Report Read More (The
impact of an uncontained core meltdown on dolphins, whales and other marine life is another
matter.) When the seaborne nuke plants reach the end of their lives they can be simply towed
ashore and decommissioned, note the authors, who include a University of Wisconsin, Madison,
researcher and representatives from Chicago Bridge & Iron, which despite its 19th centurysounding name is a nuclear power plant and offshore platform builder. Defending these nuclear
islands from possible terrorist assault by attack ships and submarines though would require
some James Bond-like like machinations: In addressing these scenarios, the guiding principles are
as follows: first, use of automatic remote early detection systems and wide-area surveillance
technologies to see and identify threats from a distance; second, increase the time for
response to threats by introduction of delays to access to vital areas through the use of
physical barriers and designing plant layout to minimize intrusion pathways (e.g., the deck
is designed so that access to board from a small boat is extremely difficult); third, minimize
security threats by reducing structures and systems needing essential protection, i.e.,
simplify safety systems and operational systems to concentrate points that must be
defended; and fourth, improve threat response capabilities by providing physical deterrents
(including use of automatic weaponry to the extent possible). Floating nuclear power plants
are not a new idea one is under construction in Russia, for instance. But none have been built
outside tsunami zones or have deployed two technologies that make the OSMR possible small
nuclear reactors and offshore platforms like those developed for deep-ocean oil drilling. What
could go wrong? The OSMR would look more or less like a nuclear power plant plopped on top
of an oil-drilling platform, except the reactor would be submerged. Southeast Asia is an ideal
region for nukes-on-the-sea, note the authors, not just due to its propensity for earthquakes and
tsunamis but because it has limited energy resources and populations concentrated on coasts and
thus relatively close to transmission lines that would be run from offshore. Floating nuclear
power plants, conclude the authors, would broaden the number of suitable sites for nuclear
plants, thus potentially opening vast new markets in East and Southeast Asia, the Middle
East, South America, Africa, small island countries, large mining operations, and [military]
bases.
The idea of SMRs is being developed-DA links are non u/qalso turn-ofshore SMRs decrease the impact of meltdown
Sarah Lozanova, May 5th, 2014, Sarah Lozanova is a journalist and communications professional
that specializes in print articles, CSR reports, blog posts, press releases, web content, media
outreach, e-newsletters, and hosting webinars, Offshore Floating Nuclear Power Plant Concept
Under Development, http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/offshore-floating-nuclear-powerplant-concept-development/
MIT scientists are exploring what they say could revolutionize the nuclear power plant,
both in terms of safety and cost. The floating offshore nuclear power plant could be constructed
in a centralized shipyard, towed five to nine miles offshore, and then anchored in place. This
power plant would utilize existing oil and gas rig technology and contain living corridors, a
helipad, and an underwater transmission line to carry the power to population centers.
Contributing to its success, the offshore floating nuclear power plant would utilize both lightwater
nuclear reactor technology and offshore platforms used for oil and gas exploration and extraction
which helps reduce risk by using mature technology. Allegedly, tsunami waves and
earthquakes wouldnt be concerning in deeper water, unlike the vulnerability of the Fukushima
power plant. In addition, the ocean can be used as a nearly infinite heat sink, making it
virtually impossible for a meltdown to occur, unlike onshore plants where there is no
ensured long-term heat sink. If an accident did occur offshore, it would ensure greater
safety and radioactive gases could be vented underwater, thus population center onshore
would remain safe. The reactor would be located deep underwater, allowing for passive
cooling by seawater, even during a potential accident. It is getting increasingly difficult to
site nuclear power plants, because of both safety concerns and the required proximity to a
water source for cooling. Waterfront property is typically more expensive, augmenting the
project development costs of a nuclear power plant. Proximity to population centers is ideal.
floating nuclear power plant The ocean is inexpensive real estate, says professor Jacopo
Buongiorno, from MIT. His team believes this fact will help boost the economic performance of
the plant. It is likely that coastal communities, however, will be opposed to a nuclear power plant
floating a few miles offshore; public concern for nuclear power plants has increased since an
earthquake and tsunami in 2011 caused an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant
complex. The concept of an offshore nuclear power plant is not new. The idea was first raised by
power utility companies in the early 1970s. The Russians are constructing a 70 MW nuclear
reactor aboard a ship, the Akademik Lomonosov, which could aid in Arctic offshore oil and gas
exploration. This project however has been plagued by financing problems and delays. In the end,
it is important to question if nuclear is the answer to our low-carbon energy needs. If it is, then
exploring ways to potentially make it safer are essential, and perhaps looking offshore is a smart
next step. It does seem like unintended consequences are likely however. Even if this offshore
floating nuclear power plant utilizes two mature technologies, the exact impact on the oceans are
yet to be determined. If nothing else, the heat from the plant would have an impact on wildlife.
Although professor Jacopo Buongiorno states that the plant would be economical , it seems the
operating costs of an offshore platform would be greater and the threat of a terrorist attack
concerning. Although the not in my backyard sentiment is strong with nuclear power plants,
thus it is doubtful that coastal communities will view a floating plant much differently. Even if
this concept is a good idea, it seems unlikely to manifest anytime soon.
Floating SMRs have a wide range of benefits-link turnSMRs are gaining support
The Economist, April 25, 2014, The Economist is the authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on
international politics and business news and opinion, Here Are The Advantages Of Floating
Nuclear Power Stations, http://www.businessinsider.com/advantages-nuclear-power-stations-atsea-2014-4

There are many things people do not want to be built in their backyard, and nuclear power
stations are high on the list. But what if floating reactors could be moored offshore, out of sight?
There is plenty of water to keep them cool and the electricity they produce can easily be
carried onshore by undersea cables. Moreover, once the nuclear plant has reached the end of
its life it can be towed away to be decommissioned. Unusual as it might seem, such an idea is
gaining supporters in America and Russia. The potential benefits of building nuclear power
stations on floating platforms, much like those used in the offshore oil-and-gas industry, were
recently presented to a symposium hosted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers by
Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, Neil Todreas and their colleagues at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, along with others from the University of Wisconsin and Chicago Bridge
& Iron, a company involved in both the nuclear and offshore industries. Floating nuclear power
stations (like the one in the illustration above) would have both economic and safety benefits,
according to the researchers. For one thing, they could take advantage of two mature and
well-understood technologies: light-water nuclear reactors and the construction of offshore
platforms, says Dr Buongiorno. The structures would be built in shipyards using tried-andtested techniques and then towed several miles out to sea and moored to the sea floor.
Keeping cool Offshore reactors would help overcome the increasing difficulty of finding
sites for new nuclear power stations. They need lots of water, so ideally should be sited
beside an ocean, lake or river. Unfortunately, those are just the places where people want to
live, so any such plans are likely to be fiercely opposed by locals. Another benefit of being
offshore is that the reactor could use the sea as an "infinite heat sink", says Dr Buongiorno. The
core of the reactor, lying below the surface, could be cooled passively without relying on pumps
driven by electricity, which could fail. fukushima Reuters In the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011
a powerful earthquake off the coast created a tsunami that inundated the Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant, wrecking the backup power generators used to keep the cooling pumps
going. This set off a meltdown in three of the plant's reactors. A floating nuclear power
station would be protected against earthquakes and tsunamis. The expanse of the ocean
would shield the structure from seismic waves in the seabed, says Dr Buongiorno, and,
provided the power station was moored in about 100 metres of water, the swell from a tsunami
should not be large enough to cause any serious damage. At the end of its service life, a floating
nuclear power station could be towed to a specially equipped yard where it could be more
easily dismantled and decommissioned. This is what happens to nuclear-powered ships.
Rosatom, a Russian state-controlled energy company, is already building a floating nuclear power
station. This is the Akademik Lomonosov, a large barge carrying a pair of nuclear reactors
capable of together generating up to 70 megawatts (MW)--enough to power a small town. The
vessel is due to be completed in 2016 and is said to be the first of many. Some people believe the
project's primary mission is to provide power for the expansion of Russia's oil-and-gas industry in
remote areas, including the Arctic. The American researchers think there is no particular limit
to the size of a floating nuclear power station and that even a 1,000MW one--the size of
some of today's largest terrestrial nuclear plants--could be built. They believe the floating
versions could be designed to meet all regulatory and security requirements, which would include
protecting the structure from underwater attack, says Dr Todreas. The idea is not new. In the late
1960s Sturgis, a converted Liberty ship containing a 10MW nuclear reactor, was used to provide
electricity to the Panama Canal Zone, which faced a power shortage. In the 1970s there was a
plan to build 1,200MW nuclear power stations off America's east coast. These would float on
giant concrete barges surrounded by a breakwater. The scheme got as far as constructing a huge
manufacturing yard near Jacksonville, Florida. But the idea faced opposition and was
scrapped, in part because of technical and regulatory uncertainties. A newer generation of
floating nuclear reactors would be safer and cheaper, but they are still unlikely to set sail
without a fight.
25 reasons why the private sector and government action

is diferent
Jan Mares, May 1, 2013, Jan Mares is a senior policy advisor at the Washington economic and
environmental think tank Resources for the Future. A veteran of Union Carbide Corp., he was the
assistant secretary for fossil energy at the Department of Energy during the Reagan
Administration and a key manager in the Department of Homeland Security in the administration
of George W. Bush, 25 Differences Between Private Sector and Government Managers,
http://www.powermag.com/25-differences-between-private-sector-and-government-managers/
Its become a clich that government would be better if it were only run by private-sector
managers using standard business practices. But Jan Mares, who has been in both
environments, says it is not the same. Mares, who worked in the private sector in the chemical
and manufacturing industries, and was the fossil energy chief in the Reagan administrations
Department of Energy, offers 25 reasons why government management and business
management are not the same. The size, dollar value, and complexity of many government
programs exceed that in the private sector. The government has fewer measures of progress
or success than the private sector, although that is changing as a result of the Government
Performance Reform Act requirements. Spending on a program is not equivalent to
progress. The private sector has profit as a clear-cut measure. Most individuals join private
sector organizations with the expectation and hope that they will have an opportunity either
to earn significant amounts of money or to be trained such that the opportunity to earn
significant amounts of money could occur in a later job. The individuals who join
governments do so knowing that high compensation rates are not possible; they join for
other reasons such as providing for others and/or having more power/responsibility than in
the private sector. Managing these two dramatically differently motivated groups is
significantly different for each group. The civil service and compensation rules of the
government make it more difficult to encourage outstanding performance and discourage
poor performance. There is very little personal gain in the government for taking risks on
policy or programs and being successful in achieving the goals more effectively. However
there is potential for substantial criticism and other personal loss if the innovative attempt
fails. The key reality to the private sector is market-driven competition, whereas the same in
the government is almost always a legislated monopoly. Private sector managers worry
about creating added value, i.e. a product or service that can be sold competitively to the
public. This requires the ability and skill to change, evolve, adapt and improve constantly.
Government is frequently quite different. Managers in the government often know what
needs to be done and desire to do it but are facing restrictions of laws, regulations, policies,
often made years earlier for other circumstances, that prevent prompt action. Authority and
responsibility in the government tends to be asymmetric while authority and responsibility
in the private sector are more clearly balanced. Responsibility in the government can be
enormous while authority is frequently quite limited. Authority in government may be
ambiguous and unclear in some circumstances. In other cases it is very clear and tightly
restricted through laws, regulations, policies and directives that leave little, if any room for
individual initiative. In most outstanding private sector organizations there are clear, wellunderstood, job-by-job, top-to-bottom goals and objectives. In government, goals and
objectives have been ill-formed, fuzzy and soft. The Government Performance Reform Act
and individual departments are striving to change this. Goals in the government are often
divergent which may lead to confusion. The senior/political leadership in Departments and
Agencies turns over more frequently and to a larger extent than occurs in the private sector.
Cabinet Secretaries do not stay longer than three years on average; Assistant Secretary
tenure is less than 24 months. New Cabinet Secretaries frequently replace significant
numbers of senior leadership in their first year. This causes starts and stops in direction of
Departments or Agencies. The only similar private sector situation is a hostile takeover. The
average years of experience either on the substantive matters for which they are responsible
or in management generally for political leadership is much, much less than their
counterparts in the private sector. This is particularly true for individuals below level of
Cabinet Secretary. The main goal of most political appointees is to promote the policies of
the Administration and/or change the policies of the previous Administration. Few political
appointees focus on organizational management issues because they have no experience;
will not be in government long; and desire to focus on policy issues, not management issues.
Political appointees receive little encouragement to focus on management issues. The
various forms of control on a government agency versus the few on the private sector are
staggering. A government agency has at least three different leadership groups to which it is
responsible. One has 100 CEOs (the Senate); one has 435 CEOs (the House) and one has one
CEO (the President) and at least 435 assistants (the White House staff including OMB, CEA,
OSTP, NSC, HSC [Homeland Security Council] and others). The result is that there is confusion
and potential delay on most significant issues or decisions. Furthermore many of these CEOs
and/or their staffs require reports about actions and/or their approval or clearance for actions
sought to be taken by the agency in accordance with existing laws and policies. The staff of the
Appropriations, Authorizing and Government Oversight committees are very powerful and can
directly or through their members direct government agency actions. The Executive Branch
disregards such staff at its peril. No similar institution affects the private sector. The norm in
the Executive Branch is for Secretaries to have multiple Special Assistants with even Assistant
Secretaries having from one to three. Unless these assistants are experienced and/or wise, which
is not normal, they can cause confusion to the subordinate officials about what is desired by their
principal. In the private sector special assistant positions are rare. The oversight of an Executive
Branch agency is much greater than of an organization in the private sector. That oversight is by
both governmental and non-governmental entities. Governmental Oversight. (a) Each Department
has an Inspector General who is charged with evaluating the Department for waste, fraud and
abuse, and poor management. The IG has access to any aspect of the agency business and reports
its findings simultaneously to the Congress and the Secretary. (b) The Appropriations,
Authorizing and Government Reform committees in each chamber have periodic hearings or
other forms of oversight over the agency. (c) Congress itself has the General Accountability
Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service, which
investigate, to varying extents, and write reports on the Executive Branch agencies. Nongovernmental oversight. This is also more extensive than that of the private sector. The national
press, general media, and trade press cover the Executive Branch extensively. There are multiple
think tanks concerning almost every aspect of the Executive Branch, which write reports
criticizing Executive Branch actions. The affected private or public sector stakeholders will
provide information and leads to the press and the Congress. These stakeholders are frequently
organized through trade associations or non-governmental organizations, which know how to
influence government action. Whistle blowers receive more encouragement and protection in
the government than the private sector and are thus more active. They provide insights and
information to the Congress, the media, and/or the affected stakeholders because of policy
differences with the Administration, anger with their employer, or for other reasons. The
government is much slower in action than the private sector; there is little sense of urgency
or time; the analogy of the time and distance involved with turning an oil tanker is apt.
Career, and on occasion political, staff in the Executive Branch have the ability to slow down
and/or derail actions of the Secretary or President by very slow compliance or apparent
compliance with decisions and/or orders. Those who wish to slow or delay action may provide
information to individuals in other parts of the Executive Branch or more often to those outside
the Executive Branch in the private sector or the Legislative Branch with the expectation that they
will challenge or question the action being directed by the Secretary or the President. Such lack of
support of the organizations leader and/or loyalty to the organization would rarely occur in the
private sector. Since political appointees know that their job tenure is very finite, they frequently
spend a disproportionate amount of time considering or working towards their next private sector
activity. This distraction, with its implications for the performance of the individual and those
organizationally above or below the individual, does not occur in the private sector. In
government, issues are rarely permanently decided with little chance of modification or
reversal. Changes in control of the White House or one or both Houses of Congress can
frequently lead to reconsideration of previous firm decisions, whether or not the external
fact situation has significantly changed. Because the tenure of political employees is limited
compared to career employees and the relevant experience of the political employees is likely to
be less than that of the career employees, there are significant opportunities for conflicts between
the B Company, i.e. the career employees who B there before and B there after the political
employees. The career employees recognize that the Congress or the private sector may react
negatively to changes being proposed or implemented by political employees who will be
departed by the time the negative reaction affects the government organization.

Floating SMR Affirmative - HSS 2014

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Floating SMR Affirmative - HSS 2014

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SMRs Af

SMRs Tsunami Solvency sea based SMRs key to solve

SMRs Shipping Solvency Nuclear Power

SMRs How it works

SMRs Shipping Solvency

regulators would have to be involved in classifying/assuring the reactor and facilitating an

provide an effective emergency response capability supported by external agencies is

Fuel Stainless clad, uranium nitride (UN)

Full-size image (52 K)

SMRs Shipping Solvency - Efficient and cheap energy is

SMRs Inherency No current surface ships are powered

SMRs Navy Solvency - Nuclear ships good for the Navy

SMRs 2AC AT: Prolif/Accidents

SMRs Desalination Solvency

SMRs Competitiveness Solvency

SMRs Shipping Solvency Arctic shipping is inevitable,

SMRs Shipping Solvency

SMRs Leadership Solvency - Federal investment is key to

SMRs Energy Leadership Solvency - And, theyre key to

SMRs Leadership Inherency - US nuclear leadership is

competitive disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive

SMRs Leadership IL - Thats key to solve prolif

SMRs Leadership IL - An SMR lead revival of the industry

share a deep commitment to reactor safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US

SMRs Leadership IL - SMRs are key to negotiation

SMRs PPP Solvency Private Sector will say yes its

Checks war check our math.

1AC Global Shipping

Higher shipping costs mean companies will shift to

The plan develops small scale nuclear reactors to power

regulators would have to be involved in classifying/assuring the reactor and facilitating an

provide an effective emergency response capability supported by external agencies is

And, Fuel efficient shipping is key oil prices will rise in

Efficient and cheap energy is key to sustain the shipping

Independently, Arctic shipping is inevitable, but absent

Maritime Shipping is key to global trade.

Maritime transport is essential to the world

trade is an important issue. Transports, commercial as well as pri- vate, contributes to 14

That solves war best models flow af.

may be at least as salient to peace as liberal politics.

And, interdependence is an impact filter for conflict

purposive theories of war

states choose a settlement method .

The choice of method is non zero-sum. Transaction costs deprive winners of

uncertainty provides weak or unresolved states an opportunity to conceal weakness even as

<<this causes runaway warming -- > ext>>

1AC Natural Disasters

Status quo nuclear plants are susceptible not protected

Sea based SMRs key to resistance recent studies prove.

Tsunamis on the west coast lead to a meltdown that will

Ofshore nuclear power plants key to desalination,

Ofshore SMRs are key for desalination

And, fossil fuels and other renewables do not solve

SMRs are specifically key to desalination allows for

first, Nuclear desalination is critical to solve water crisis

Second, developing an enhanced desalination policy is key

And, the US is key to export models of water innovation

That solves multiple scenarios for conflict most likely

1AC Nuclear Leadership

competitive disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive

SMRs theyre key to the nuclear industry and US

Specifically, An SMR lead revival of the industry restores

SMRs are key to negotiation pressure for nonproliferation

And Nuclear prolif guarantees global catastrophe