Big Sky Debate ## 2003 PF Nuclear Power PDF

March 2020 NSDA Public Forum Debate:
Nuclear Power
Resolved: The United States should increase its use of
nuclear energy for commercial energy production.
NSDA Public Forum, March 2020: Nuclear Power Page 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1
META 3
MUST SET AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD TO EVALUATE NUKE POWER 3
PRO 4
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUCLEAR POWER IS A GREAT OPTION FOR POWER GENERATION 4
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER CAN GENERATE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF POWER 5
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUCLEAR POWER IS EFFICIENT 6
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER IS LOW CARBON 7
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER CRITICAL FOR BATTLING CLIMATE CHANGE 8
NUKE POWER GOOD: BETTER THAN RENEWABLES 10
NUKE POWER GOOD: NEW TECHNOLOGY IS SMALLER, MORE NIMBLE 11
NUKE POWER GOOD: CHEAPER THAN ALL ALTERNATIVES 12
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE 13
NUKE POWER SAFE: RISKS CAN BE MANAGED 14
NUKE POWER SAFE: RADIATION RELEASE RISK IS MINIMAL 16
NUKE POWER SAFE: MODERN TECHNOLOGY DIMINISHES CHANCE OF A MELTDOWN 21
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUKE POWER SAFER THAN ALL OTHER OPTIONS 22
NUKE POWER SAFE: FEAR OF NUCLEAR POWER IS IRRATIONAL 26
NUKE POWER SAFE: MUST SEPARATE “NUCLEAR POWER” AND “NUCLEAR WEAPONS” IN OUR RHETORIC 28
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS HIGHLY UNLIKELY 30
NUKE POWER SAFE: THERE WERE NO DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO FUKUSHIMA! 31
NUKE POWER SAFE: THERE WERE NO DEATHS DUE TO THREE MILE ISLAND! 32
NUKE POWER SAFE: CHERNOBYL WON’T HAPPEN IN THE MODERN UNITED STATES 33
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR POWER WASTE IS EASY TO MANAGE 36
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: CAN’T UNINVENT THE TECHNOLOGY, SO, US MUST LEAD 39
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: US INDUSTRY IS STAGNANT 40
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: US MUST LEAD TO CONTROL WORLDWIDE ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY 41
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY 42
MUST INCREASE NUCLEAR POWER: IMPORTANT FOR NUCLEAR-POWERED WEAPONS SYSTEMS 43
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: DECOMMISSIONED PLANTS ARE REPLACED BY FOSSIL FUELS 44
A/T: NUKE POWER TOO EXPENSIVE 45
A/T: NUCLEAR POWER IS UNSAFE FOR WORKERS 46
A/T: NUKE PLANT ARE TERROR ATTACKS 47
CON 48
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: COST IS THE DOMINANT ISSUE 48
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: CAN’T COMPETE WITH RENEWABLES 49
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: CAN’T COMPETE WITHOUT SUBSIDIES 53
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: INITIAL INVESTMENT IS MASSIVE 55
NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: EFFICIENCY IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE 57
NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: RENEWABLES ARE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE 58
NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: RENEWABLES ARE BEST FOR A DISTRIBUTED NETWORK 60
NUKE POWER BAD: TOTALITY OF PROBLEMS WILL LIMIT ITS ULTIMATE USE 61
NUKE POWER BAD: EXPANSION OF PROCESSED NUCLEAR WASTE INCREASES THREAT OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
AND TERRORISM 62
NUKE POWER BAD: CAN’T SCALE TO MEET ANY REAL THREATS IT CLAIMS TO MITIGATE 63
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUCLEAR POWER TOO UNSAFE TO EXPAND 64
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: RADIATION RELEASE IS A THREAT TO HUMANS 68
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: HUGE RISKS FOR URANIUM MINERS 70
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: THERE *WILL* BE AN ACCIDENT! 71
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: GOVERNMENT HIDES INFORMATION ON NUKE POWER SAFETY 72
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUCLEAR WASTE IS A NIGHTMARE! 73
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUKE POWER PLANTS A TERRORIST TARGET 75
A/T: REGULATION/MANAGEMENT MINIMIZES RISK 76
A/T: EFFICIENCY OF NUCLEAR POWER JUSTIFIES USE 78
A/T: OVERALL RISK IS TOO LOW TO TURN AWAY FROM NUKE POWER 79
A/T: NUKE POWER CRITICAL TO BATTLE CLIMATE CHANGE 80
A/T: NUCLEAR FUEL UNLIMITED 83
A/T: NEW TECHNOLOGY AND COMPACT REACTORS MINIMIZE RISK 84
META
MUST SET AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD TO EVALUATE NUKE POWER
SHOULD SET EVALUATION AND SUPPORT THRESHOLD LEVELS FIRST, THEN CONSIDER NUCLEAR POWER BASED ON
THOSE METRICS-Dean '11
[Tim; Science Journalist and Editor of Austrian Life Scientist Magazine; How not to debate the ethics of nuclear power;
Australian Broadcast Company; 18 March 2011; http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/03/18/3167483.htm;
retrieved 8 February 2020]
But once we have set our bar, we need to let these empirical facts give us the conclusion we seek; we can't keep moving
the bar. To do so suggests we haven't been entirely honest with ourselves and we need to re-evaluate our premises, or
else risk being disqualified from the debate altogether.
There will always be unknowns, and there will always be disagreement over values, but these can all be factored in to
the great rational debate. It's unlikely everyone will come to agreement on whether nuclear power is permissible or not.
But if we have a rational debate, at least we'll be clear on why we disagree. And that would certainly be an improvement
on where we are today.
PRO
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUCLEAR POWER IS A GREAT OPTION FOR POWER
GENERATION
NUCLEAR POWER IS THE OBVIOUS FIRST STEP TO CLEAN, LOW-COST ENERGY-Alexander '10
[Lamar; Senator from Tennessee; Nuclear Is America's Best Hope for Affordable Green Energy; Nuclear Energy; 2010;
Gale Group Databases]
Nuclear power is the obvious first step to a policy of clean but low-cost energy. One hundred new plants in 20 years
would double U.S. nuclear production, making it about 40 percent of all electricity production. Add 10 percent for sun
and wind and other renewables, another 10 percent for hydroelectric and maybe 5 percent more natural gas—and we
begin to have a cheap as well as clean energy policy.
NUCLEAR IS OUR BEST OPTION FOR CHEAP, CLEAN AND RELIABLE ENERGY-Alexander '10
There's a better option. Let's take another long, hard look at nuclear power. Nuclear is already our best source for large
amounts of cheap, reliable, and clean energy. It provides only 20 percent of our nation's electricity but 70 percent of our
carbon-free, pollution-free electricity. It is already far and away our best defense against global warming.
WE SHOULD DRAMATICALLY EXPAND NUCLEAR POWER TO INCREASE OUR ENERGY GENERATION CAPACITY-McGregor
'04
[Douglas; Director of the Semiconductor Materials and Radiological Technologies Laboratory at the University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor; The Use of Nuclear Power Should Be Increased; Global Resources; 2004; Gale Group Databases]
The rolling blackouts that occurred in California, and the threat of power shortages elsewhere, should focus national
attention on a viable energy option that is now responsible for about 20 percent of our electrical power generation, yet
could easily be responsible for much more. In fact, France now uses this energy option to generate nearly 80 percent of
its electricity, and a number of other countries are also more dependent on this energy option than is the United States
(see Figure 1). Ironically, the technology in question was invented and developed here.
We are referring, of course, to nuclear power. This industry has been brought to a virtual standstill in this country based
on fears that nuclear power is far too dangerous to use. Those fears are unfounded, however, and America should take a
second look at this amazing form of power generation. France, Belgium, Switzerland, and other countries that generate
a higher percentage of their electrical output via nuclear power than does the United States have been able to do so
without loss of life and without harming the environment. Why should it be any different here?
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER CAN GENERATE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF

POWER
THE POWER GENERATION FROM NUCLEAR POWER IS EXTRAORDINARY-Byas ‘19

[Steve; NUCLEAR POWER THE PROMISE VS. IRRATIONAL FEAR; The New American; 3 June 2019; page 25]
However, despite what one believes about the validity of human-caused global warming, not using nuclear power to
generate electricity for this country is a mistake no matter how you look at it.
The energy that can be produced by nuclear fission--the splitting of the atom--is mind-boggling. According to Scott
Montgomery and Thomas Graham, in their recent book Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st
Century, "One fission event [in 1939] yielded more than 200 million times the energy of the neutron that caused it." One
gram of uranium (about the size of a standard BB), through fission, could produce as much energy as 3.3 tons of coal.
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUCLEAR POWER IS EFFICIENT
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HAS IMPROVED EFFICIENTLY AND UTILIZATION WHILE DOING SO MORE SAFELY-Kidd '13
[Steve; Director of Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association; New Reactors—More or Less?; Nuclear
Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
It is reasonable to talk about the nuclear renaissance in two discrete stages. Firstly, the industry had to prove that it
could run the existing stock of reactors a lot better than it was doing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Indeed, if it
hadn't done this, many of them would have closed down by now with the onset of electricity liberalisation in many
countries. Much improved performance has now been accomplished almost universally, with reactors running at higher
utilisation rates, more safely and also benefiting from power uprates and licence extensions.
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER IS LOW CARBON
NUCLEAR POWER IS A PROVEN LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGY-Ford et al ‘18

[Michael J.; French Environmental Fellow at the Harvard University Center for the Environment; and Ahmed Abdulla,
research scientist at the University of California, San Diego,; and M. Granger Morgan, Hamerschlag University Professor
of Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; Nuclear Power Needs Leadership, but Not from the Military; Issues in
Science and TEchnology; Summer 2018; page 67]
Second, despite the challenges it faces, nuclear power remains a proven low-carbon technology. Many energy and
climate experts think that without a portfolio of low-carbon energy options that includes at least some nuclear power,
the nation and the world will be hard pressed in coming decades to sufficiently cut emissions of the warming
greenhouse gases that drive climate change. But those assessments do not reflect nuclear power's grim realities on the
ground.
NUCLEAR POWER IS FAR MORE EMISSIONS FREE THAN ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY-Carl ‘18
[Jeremy; Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution; Keeping the Lights On: Nuclear power has to remain part of our
energy mix; Hoover Digest; 2018; page 134]
Yet, despite these challenges, nuclear still provides one-fifth of all electricity in the United States and creates far more
emissions-free energy than any other technology, including the solar and wind that so enrapture environmentalists. And,
of course, the South Carolina and Georgia debacles were not the natural result of nuclear technology. As studies have
shown, it is not inevitable that nuclear power plant construction costs must rise.
NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER CRITICAL FOR BATTLING CLIMATE CHANGE
DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE REQUIRES THAT WE EXPAND NUCLEAR ENERGY TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION-Hoar
‘19
[William P.; Managing Editor of Periscope; Climate-obsessed Greenies Fear Emissions, but Reject Carbon-free Nuclear
Power; The New American; 21 October 2019; page 41]
A study group, led by MIT researchers in collaboration with colleagues from the Idaho National Laboratory and
University of Madison-Wisconsin, not long ago released the finding of its analysis. It found that unless nuclear energy is
meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, "the challenge of climate change will
be much more difficult and costly to solve."
CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISTS ADVOCATE FOR AN INCREASE TO NUCLEAR POWER IS CRITICAL FOR ADDRESSING
CLIMATE CHANGE-Hoar ‘19
American statists typically parrot the revealed wisdom of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Yet, as
one Forbes writer has reminded us, reports from the IPCC, the International Energy Agency, the UN Sustainable
Solutions Network, and the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate have "argued for a tripling of nuclear
energy, requiring over a thousand new reactors to stabilize carbon emissions." Even the left-leaning Union of Concerned
Scientists maintains that nuclear energy is necessary to address climate change.
IN PLACES LIKE ALBERTA, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET CURRENT ENERGY NEEDS AND DECREASE EMISSIONS
WITHOUT NUCLEAR POWER-Van Kooten et al ‘16
[G. Cornelius, Jun Duan, and Rachel Lynch, Department of Economics, University of Victoria; Is There a Future for Nuclear
Power? Wind and Emission Reduction Targets in Fossil-Fuel Alberta; PLoS ONE; 30 November 2016; page e0165822]
Finally, if politicians in Alberta are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% or more and, at the same
time, continue to develop the oil sands despite a cap on annual emissions of 100 Mt CO2 , it is unlikely this can be
achieved without purchasing carbon offsets outside the province or investing in nuclear power. Given that prices of
carbon offsets are likely to rise exorbitantly in the future as more and more jurisdictions look to carbon offsets to meet
emission reduction targets, and as developing countries are brought into an effective emission-reduction agreement, the
most realistic option might well be a nuclear one. Planning should at least consider this option.
WE MUST CONSIDER USING NUCLEAR POWER AS PART OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION-Claussen '10
[Eileen; President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change; We Must Consider Nuclear Energy as Part of Our Climate
Change Solution; Nuclear Energy; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
And so, as we look at these wedges, and as we scan the horizon for opportunities to reduce emissions of these gases in a
substantial way, we have to consider how ... nuclear power can be a part of the solution. We would be foolish not to.
Nuclear is one of the few options on the table for producing electricity with no carbon emissions. And, it is already
delivering 20 percent or more of U.S. electricity, and more in other countries: 78 percent in France, 54 percent in
Belgium, 39 percent in South Korea, and 30 percent in Japan. The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] says
nuclear accounts for 15 percent of electricity generation worldwide.
THE COSTS AND RISKS OF FOSSIL FUELS MAKES NUCLEAR POWER A MORE ATTRACTIVE OPTION-Romm '10
[Joseph; Writer, Physicist and Climate Expert and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund;
Nuclear Power's Multiple Limitations Will Constrain Its Future Growth; Nuclear Energy; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
For three decades, no new nuclear power plants have been ordered in the United States. Now a number of utilities are
proposing to build nuclear power plants, in large part because of the escalating cost of electricity from new fossil fuels
plants and the federal government's promise of production tax credits and loan guarantees for investments in new
nuclear power capacity.
Nuclear power has reemerged as a major issue in the policy and political arenas in large part because of the growing
recognition that the nation and the world must make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The
combustion of fossil fuels is the primary source of carbon dioxide, which is the main greenhouse gas.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS SUCH A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO TAKE ANY SOLUTION OFF THE TABLE, AS
THE AFFIRMATIVE SUGGESTS-Claussen '10
Some environmental groups feel that this industry poses as serious a threat to the world as climate change itself and
should therefore be opposed at all costs. At the Pew Center, we don't feel this way. What we have always said is that
climate change is such a serious problem that we cannot afford to take any option off the table. We simply cannot
ignore the fact that nuclear power could make a substantial contribution to our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING MEANS NO CARBON FREE SOLUTION CAN BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND DESPITE
RISKS-Romm '10
The threat of catastrophic global warming means that no carbon-free source of power can be rejected out of hand. The
very serious possibilities that sea levels will rise several inches each decade for many centuries, and a third of the planet
will undergo desertification are far graver concerns than the very genuine environmental concerns about radiation
releases and long-term waste issues.
COMPREHENSIVE CLIMATE POLICY WILL MAKE NUCLEAR POWER MUCH MORE COMPETITIVE-Claussen '10
Right now, the best subsidy for nuclear power is a comprehensive climate policy. Because the sooner we have a
cap-and-trade program in place, the sooner we will be able to determine in a reasoned way which energy options make
the most sense, both for the economy and for the environment. And the sooner this industry can get past the cost issue
and have a real discussion about the potential of expanded nuclear power as a solution to our energy and environmental
needs.
NUKE POWER GOOD: BETTER THAN RENEWABLES
NUCLEAR POWER HAS SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGES OVER OTHER RENEWABLE RESOURCES-Hoar ‘19
Let's stipulate that nuclear energy isn't perfect. As with other sources of energy, there are trade-offs to consider. For
example, fossil fuels are generally cheaper of late than nuclear. Nuclear energy is the third largest electricity source in
the United States, behind natural gas and coal. It is dependable and available when the sun does not shine and the wind
does not blow. Nuclear power operates around-the-clock at more than 92-percent average capacity factor. That is more
than twice the capacity factor of any other "clean" energy source (including solar and wind, which collectively account
for around eight percent of the U.S. power supply).
NUKE POWER GOOD: NEW TECHNOLOGY IS SMALLER, MORE NIMBLE
ALTHOUGH WE ARE UNDERUTILIZING THE TECHNOLOGY, NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY IS NOW AVAILABLE IN
SMALLER, MORE AFFORDABLE FORMATS-Ford et al ‘18
Two decades ago, some in the industry recognized that continuing to build large, complex reactors made little sense.
Companies proposed shifting to a class of smaller systems: small modular reactors with a nominal power output of less
than 300 megawatts of electricity. Their costs would be both more affordable and more predictable--assuming they
managed to exploit factory fabrication and modular construction, the way airliners and gas turbines have--somewhat
ameliorating nuclear power's steep economic cost. In the United States, more than 30 companies are pursuing SMR
variants. Most face monumental challenges, lacking as they do the resources or experience to proceed. None has a
guaranteed order book that could underpin the commercialization of either a reactor or its manufacturing
infrastructure.
NUKE POWER GOOD: CHEAPER THAN ALL ALTERNATIVES
KEEPING EXISTING NUCLEAR POWER IS IMPORTANT FINANCIALLY AS ALTERNATIVES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE-Carl ‘18
What can be done to save existing reactors? Some states have stepped in with direct payments to the plants,
recognizing their emissions-free capabilities and security profile. Recent studies from MIT and Carnegie Mellon have
made a compelling case that even from a purely economic perspective this is better than mothballing them. When
California shut down the San Onofre plant north of San Diego in a highly politicized environment, studies calculated that
an extra $350 million in costs was paid when other providers raised their rates.
NUCLEAR POWER IS INEXPENSIVE COMPARED TO OTHER POWER SOURCES-McGregor '04

Our nuclear power plants have not only been generating electricity safely, they also have been doing so economically.
The February 2001 issue of Nuclear Energy Insight listed the average nuclear energy production cost for 1999 as 1.83
cents per kW-hour, as compared to 3.18 cents/kW-hr for oil-burning plants, 3.52 cents per kW-hr for natural gas plants,
and 2.07 cents per kW-hr for coal plants....
NUCLEAR POWER IS CHEAPER THAN COAL WHEN YOU FACTOR IN COSTS INTO COAL LIKE EMISSIONS
SEQUESTRATION-Claussen '10
Last but not least among the potential barriers to nuclear power is the issue of cost. The participants in the Keystone
Center discussions said a reasonable estimate for life cycle costs of nuclear power is between 8 and 11 cents per
kilowatt-hour. Granted, this is higher than some industry and U.S. DOE [Department of Energy] estimates of 4 to 7 cents
per kilowatt-hour, but there is no denying that nuclear power, under present-day circumstances, is expensive relative to
its main competitor: coal. For comparison's sake, a coal plant operating without carbon capture has life cycle costs of
around 4.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. A conventional coal-fired plant, in other words, produces electricity at roughly half
the cost of a nuclear plant. This is a huge barrier to this industry's expansion, as all of you know very well.
But something interesting happens when you try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired plant by
adding carbon capture and sequestration. The life cycle cost goes up significantly, and according to estimates, could be
as high as 8 cents, which is the same as the Keystone Center's low-end estimate for nuclear. So now, you start to reach a
level of parity with coal. But again, this only happens if we launch a determined effort to capture carbon emissions from
coal-fired plants.
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE
THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN OUTSTANDINGLY SUCCESSFUL AT AVOIDING NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-World Nuclear
Association '10
[Nuclear Power Reactors Are One of the Safest Ways to Produce Electricity; Nuclear Energy; 2010; Gale Group
Databases]
In avoiding such accidents the industry has been outstandingly successful. In 12,000 cumulative reactor-years of
commercial operation in 32 countries, there have been only two major accidents to nuclear power plants—Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl, the latter being of little relevance outside the old Soviet bloc.
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WORKS TIRELESSLY TO MAKE NUCLEAR POWER AN EXTREMELY SAFE INDUSTRY-World
Nuclear Association '13
[The Risks of Nuclear Accidents or Terrorist Attacks on Plants Are Minimal and Manageable; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale
Group Databases]
A particular nuclear scenario was loss of cooling which resulted in melting of the nuclear reactor core, and this
motivated studies on both the physical and chemical possibilities as well as the biological effects of any dispersed
radioactivity. Those responsible for nuclear power technology in the West devoted extraordinary effort to ensuring that
a meltdown of the reactor core would not take place, since it was assumed that a meltdown of the core would create a
major public hazard, and if uncontained, a tragic accident with likely multiple fatalities.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC INJURED BY A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN THE UNITED
STATES-Moore and Kanellos '11
[Patrick; Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition; and Michael; Editor-in-Chief of Greentech Media; Nuclear Power Is
the Most Secure Form of Energy; Coal; 2011; Gale Group Databases]
If people look at the actual record, as opposed to the sensationalist speculation, there has never been a member of the
public injured by a nuclear plant in the United States, even during Three Mile Island [a serious nuclear power plant
accident in Pennsylvania in 1979]. It was just a bad mechanical failure. It did not cause harm to the public or to the
workers in the plant. There is no evidence that anyone was injured by that accident. That was the worst accident in the
history of the West, excluding the Soviet Union's stupid Chernobyl design, which is pretty much phased out now,
although there are still 11 of them running. [The Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident occurred in April 1986.]
NUKE POWER SAFE: RISKS CAN BE MANAGED
CONCERNS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER ARE REAL, BUT, CAN BE MITIGATED WITH EXPERTISE-Carl ‘18
The security, waste disposal, and risk concerns around nuclear power are certainly real and should not be wished away.
But the expertise to build passively safe reactors--reactors that by their design would make a serious accident almost
impossible--will not be cultivated if our next generation of power plants is not developed.
NUCLEAR PLANTS UTILIZE MULTIPLE SAFETY SYSTEMS-World Nuclear Association '10

Databases]
To achieve optimum safety, nuclear plants in the Western world operate using a 'defence-in-depth' approach, with
multiple safety systems supplementing the natural features of the reactor core. Key aspects of the approach are:
high-quality design & construction
equipment which prevents operational disturbances developing into problems
redundant and diverse systems to detect problems, control damage to the fuel and prevent significant radioactive
releases
provision to confine the effects of severe fuel damage to the plant itself.
The safety provisions include a series of physical barriers between the radioactive reactor core and the environment, the
provision of multiple safety systems, each with backup and designed to accommodate human error. Safety systems
account for about one-quarter of the capital cost of such reactors.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE WAVES OF PROTECTION SHOULD SAFETY SYSTEMS
FAIL-Cohen '10
[Bernard; Author and Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy & Environmental and Occupational Health at the
University of Pittsburgh; Nuclear Energy Risks Are Inconsequential; Nuclear Energy; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
The nuclear power plant design strategy for preventing accidents and mitigating their potential effects is "defense in
depth"—if something fails, there is a backup system to limit the harm done, if that system should also fail there is
another backup system for it, etc., etc. Of course, it is possible that each system in this series of backups might fail one
after the other, but the probability for that is exceedingly small. The media often publicize a failure of some particular
system in some plant, implying that it was a "close call" on disaster; they completely miss the point of defense in depth,
which easily takes care of such failures. Even in the Three Mile Island accident where at least two equipment failures
were severely compounded by human errors, two lines of defense were still not breached—essentially all of the
radioactivity remained sealed in the thick steel reactor vessel, and that vessel was sealed inside the heavily reinforced
concrete and steel lined "containment" building that was never even challenged. It was clearly not a close call on
disaster to the surrounding population. The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not
have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted.
SEVERAL MITIGATING STRATEGIES ARE BUILT INTO SAFETY FOR THOSE WORKING IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS-World
Nuclear Association '10
Databases]
Operational safety is a prime concern for those working in nuclear plants. Radiation doses are controlled by the use of
remote handling equipment for many operations in the core of the reactor. Other controls include physical shielding and
limiting the time workers spend in areas with significant radiation levels. These are supported by continuous monitoring
of individual doses and of the work environment to ensure very low radiation exposure compared with other industries.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE BUILT TO PREVENTING THE ESCAPE OF RADIOACTIVITY-World Nuclear Association '10
Databases]
The decades-long test and analysis program showed that less radioactivity escapes from molten fuel than initially
assumed, and that this radioactive material is not readily mobilized beyond the immediate internal structure. Thus, even
if the containment structure that surrounds all modern nuclear plants were ruptured, it would still be highly effective in
preventing escape of radioactivity.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE DESIGNED WITH MULTIPLE SAFETY SYSTEMS TO KEEP ENERGY GENERATION
SAFE-World Nuclear Association '13
Group Databases]
To achieve optimum safety, nuclear plants in the western world operate using a "defence-in-depth" approach, with
multiple safety systems supplementing the natural features of the reactor core. Key aspects of the approach are:
high-quality design and construction,
equipment which prevents operational disturbances or human failures and errors developing into problems,
comprehensive monitoring and regular testing to detect equipment or operator failures,
redundant and diverse systems to control damage to the fuel and prevent significant radioactive releases,
provision to confine the effects of severe fuel damage (or any other problem) to the plant itself.
These can be summed up as: Prevention, Monitoring, and Action (to mitigate consequences of failures)....
NUKE POWER SAFE: RADIATION RELEASE RISK IS MINIMAL
RADIATION ITSELF IS COMMON DESPITE NUCLEAR POWER, AND EVEN HIGH LEVELS OF RADIATION AREN’T
INHERENTLY DANGEROUS-Byas ‘19
We get significant levels of radiation from air travel, hiking in the mountains, or lying in the sun, tanning. Those who live
in areas of high altitude (such as in Denver) receive higher levels of natural radiation than people in New Orleans.
And while it is definitely true that exposure to very high levels of radiation can lead to an increased cancer risk--even if a
person does not experience radiation sickness (caused by the killing of cells)--and even death, low levels of radiation are
innocuous. For example, many patients worry about an increased risk of cancer from a chest X-ray, but such an X-ray is
about 1,000 times below the level at which the risk one has of getting cancer goes up one percent.
Even if one were to get a dose of radiation high enough to develop temporary radiation sickness, with nausea, the
increased chance of cancer is much less than five percent.
NUCLEAR RADIATION RELEASE FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS LESS RISKY THAN IF YOU SNEAK A CIGARETTE NOW
AND AGAIN-Stockton ‘17
[Nick; Science Reporter for Wired; Nuclear Power Is Too Safe to Save the World from Climate Change; 2017; Gale Group]
Nuclear energy sources are dangerous because they emit radiation—particles and energy shed from unstable molecules
trying to calm down. “Those radioactive missiles can hit the human body and damage cells or DNA,” says David
Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientist’s nuclear safety project. Enough radiation will give you cancer,
or possibly even pass genetic mutations on to your kids. Too much can kill you outright.
But plants like Watts Bar don’t release much radiation into the environment. Inside, radioactive material heats water,
which turns into steam, which spins the enormous turbines that generate electricity. Plants regularly release some of
that water and steam at rates prescribed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and if you live downriver or
downwind of one, the radiation within will raise your chances of developing a tumor by just one tenth of one percent.
You’re far more likely to grow a tumor because you sneak a cigarette now and again.
YOU WOULD NEED TO LIVE NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FOR MORE THAN 2,000 YEARS TO RECEIVE THE SAME
AMOUNT OF RADIATION THEY WE GET FROM A SINGLE DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL X-RAY-McGregor '04
We would receive .03 millirem annually by living within a 50-mile radius of a coal-fired power plant, but only .009
millirem by living within a 50-mile radius of a nuclear power plant! Incredible as it may seem, we would have to live near
a nuclear power plant for more than 2,000 years in order to receive the same amount of radiation that we would get
from a single diagnostic medical X-ray.
THE TYPICAL AMERICAN RECEIVES MUCH LESS RADIATION FROM NUCLEAR POWER THAN FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE,
NATURAL OR HUMAN-CAUSED-Corrice '13
[Leslie; Engineer and Nuclear Technology and Environmental Sciences Writer; Minimal Exposure to Radiation Poses No
Safety Risk; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
The typical American receives about 330 millirems (.33 REM) of radiation per year from naturally radioactive
atmospheric gasses, food, water, cosmic rays, the soil beneath our feet, building materials (adobe brick is a big one), and
other people near us. We also get, on the average, another 30 millirems from man-made sources like medical and dental
X-rays. We each get less than 1 millirem from the sum total of all nuclear power plant operations in America. The
American average dose due to all sources of radiation is about 360 millirems per year, of which less than 0.3% comes
from nuclear power plants. What's more, the total dose of radiation from the TMI accident to any member of the
exposed public living next door to the plant and downwind was no more than 40 millirem. This means the TMI
population-most-at-risk got about 400 millirems total for the year of the TMI accident, rather than the 360 millirems
they would have received anyway. This is well below the 50,000 millirem (50 REM) exposure that holds a vanishingly slim
chance of actually being harmful, and the 100 REM threshold level that holds a very tiny chance of actually producing
death.
RADIATION OCCURS NATURALLY IN OUR ENVIRONMENT AND IS SIGNIFICANTLY DELIVERED BY MEDICAL

X-RAYS-Cohen '10
The principal risks associated with nuclear power arise from health effects of radiation. This radiation consists of
subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity of light—186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside
the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer. If they strike sex cells, they can
cause genetic diseases in progeny.
Radiation occurs naturally in our environment; a typical person is, and always has been struck by 15,000 particles of
radiation every second from natural sources, and an average medical X-ray involves being struck by 100 billion. While
this may seem to be very dangerous, it is not, because the probability for a particle of radiation entering a human body
to cause a cancer or a genetic disease is only one chance in 30 million billion (30 quintillion).
ALL IN, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EXPOSURE DUE TO NUCLEAR POWER IS 0.2% OF EXPOSURE FROM NATURAL
SOURCES-Cohen '10
Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called
"radioactive." These materials can come into contact with people ... through small releases during routine plant
operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive
wastes from confinement systems. We will discuss these separately, but all of them taken together, with accidents
treated probabilistically, will eventually expose the average American to about 0.2% of his exposure from natural
radiation. Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology
should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one
hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil,
or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days.
MOST NUCLEAR RADIATION DEATHS EACH YEAR HAPPEN DUE TO EXPOSURE TO UNCONTROLLED RADIATION
SOURCES LIKE ABANDONED MEDICAL OR INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT-World Nuclear Association '10
Databases]
Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation
due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the serious radiological injuries and deaths that occur each year
(two to four deaths and many more exposures above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation
sources, such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment. (There have also been a number of accidents in
experimental reactors and in one military plutonium-producing pile—at Windscale, UK, in 1957—but none of these
resulted in loss of life outside the actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.)
COAL PLANTS ACTUALLY RELEASE MORE RADIATION THAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS-Moore and Kanellos '11
Well, it's not only cleaner, it's almost infinitely cleaner in that it has no regulated air emissions. Coal actually releases far
more radiation than nuclear plants. There is some radiation released by the nuclear industry, but it's not considered to
be of any significance from a health point of view or an environmental point of view. It is cost-effective and it is proven
safe. Safety and waste are the two main concerns.
OTHER THAN CHERNOBYL, ALL OF THE RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE DEATHS AND INJURIES ARE THE RESULT OF
UNCONTROLLED RADIATION SOURCES LIKE ABANDONED MEDICAL EQUIPMENT-World Nuclear Association '13
Group Databases]
Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation
due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the serious radiological injuries and deaths that occur each year
(2-4 deaths and many more exposures above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources,
such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment....
NUCLEAR RADIATION THAT IS EMITTED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IS MINUSCULE-McGregor '04
The amount of radiation that is emitted by nuclear power plants, as already indicated, is minuscule. According to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, the annual whole body dose to the public is limited to 25 millirems
for uranium fuel cycle operations.
But before anyone panics at such a generous regulatory allotment, let's put into proper focus how much radiation a
millirem is. According to information from the NEI, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP), and the EPA, natural background radiation from the Earth's crust ranges from 23 millirems per year at the
Atlantic Coast to 90 millirems per year on the Colorado Plateau. Radiation inside the body is approximately 40 millirems
per year from the food and water we consume and up to 200 millirems per year from natural levels of radon in the air
we breathe. The annual radiation dose reaching us from outer space ranges from 26 millirems at sea level to 53
millirems at elevations between 7,000-8,000 feet. The radiation dose from a simple medical X-ray is approximately 20
millirems, and the average radiation dose from a 1,000-mile airline flight is about 1 millirem—meaning that a traveler
who flies across the country and back will accumulate about 5 millirems. We also receive 1-2 millirems annually from
watching television and would receive another 7 millirems annually from living in a brick building.
ALL LEVELS OF RADIATION ARE NOT DANGEROUS; A CLEAR LINE EXISTS BETWEEN DANGEROUS AND NOT
DANGEROUS-Corrice '13
[Leslie; Engineer and Nuclear Technology and Environmental Sciences Writer; Minimal Exposure to Radiation Poses No
Safety Risk; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
Beginning with the accident at Three Mile Island [Pennsylvania] in 1979, a widespread belief has proliferated that all
levels of ionizing radiation are dangerous. Since 1980, radiation hormesis [the biological response to toxins or other
stressful events] studies have shown there is actually a threshold of danger with high level exposures, but below that
threshold low dose radiation is essentially safe and quite possibly beneficial to life. Yet this relatively new, seemingly
contradictory understanding of radiation's health effects has gone essentially unknown to the general public. In order to
grasp the reasons why, we must again return to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
IN ALL NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS, ONLY ONE (CHERNOBYL) RESULTED IN RADIATION BEING RELEASED OUTSIDE THE
PLANT-World Nuclear Association '10
Databases]
These two significant accidents occurred during more than 12,700 reactor-years of civil operation. Of all the accidents
and incidents, only the Chernobyl accident resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the
exposure to natural sources. Other incidents (and one 'accident') have been completely confined to the plant.
WITH ALL OF THE INCIDENTS INVOLVING NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORT, THERE IS LESS THAN A 1% CHANCE THAT
EVEN A SINGLE DEATH WILL OCCUR DUE TO RADIATION EXPOSURE-Cohen '10
Potential problems from accidents in transport of radioactive materials are largely neutralized by elaborate packaging. A
great deal of such transport has taken place over the past 50 years and there have been numerous accidents, including
fatal ones. However, from all of these accidents combined, there is less than a 1% chance that even a single death will
ever result from radiation exposure. Probabilistic risk analyses indicate that we can expect less than one death per
century in the U.S. from this source.
NUKE POWER SAFE: MODERN TECHNOLOGY DIMINISHES CHANCE OF A

MELTDOWN
MODERN NUCLEAR REACTORS HAVE A DRAMATICALLY DECREASED CHANCE FOR A MELTDOWN-Stockton ‘17
But you aren’t afraid of routine releases. You’re terrified of another Three Mile Island, Fukushima, or Chernobyl.
These disasters were the result of a meltdown, which occurs when something impedes a reactor’s ability to cool the fuel.
The US, where nearly 20 percent of electricity comes from 99 nuclear plants, uses uranium. Older reactors—which is
every reactor in the US, including Watts Bar Unit 2—use electric pumps to move water through the system. The
Fukushima disaster showed what happens it you have pumps but no power to use them. Newer generations rely on
gravity instead, draining cooling water from elevated storage tanks to send it through the reactor core.
Those updates mean serious nuclear accidents are becoming ever rarer. Since Three Mile Island in 1979, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission found that the rate of shut-down-the-reactor-level problems has dropped from 2.5 per plant per
year to around 0.1 (One such happened on March 29 in Washington). Even Three Mile Island wasn’t the disaster it could
have been, because of that plant’s layers of redundant protection.
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUKE POWER SAFER THAN ALL OTHER OPTIONS
NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFER THAN ANY OTHER SOURCE, INCLUDING SOLAR-Hoar ‘19
However, obsessed fear-mongers--Greenpeace is but one example--contend that nuclear power is a potential disaster.
But getting out of bed can be dangerous. Dams can break, killing thousands. Producing and using coal certainly affect the
environment, as do petroleum products, though technology has reduced their negative effects. Oxford researcher
Hannah Ritchie has calculated that (per unit of electricity generated) oil is 263 times more deadly than nuclear power,
while ordinary coal is 352 times deadlier, and lignite coal even more deadly than that.
Here's another related factoid, by James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics: "More people have fallen off of
roofs installing solar panels than have been killed in the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S."
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS WAY SAFER THAN COAL-FIRED POWER GENERATION-World Nuclear Association '13
Group Databases]
The designs for nuclear plants being developed for implementation in coming decades contain numerous safety
improvements based on operational experience. The first two of these advanced reactors began operating in Japan in
1996.
One major feature they have in common (beyond safety engineering already standard in Western reactors) is passive
safety systems, requiring no operator intervention in the event of a major malfunction....
Many occupational accident statistics have been generated over the last 40 years of nuclear reactor operations in the US
and UK. These can be compared with those from coal-fired power generation. All show that nuclear is a distinctly safer
way to produce electricity.
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS EXTREMELY SAFE AND HAS CAUSED LESS DEATHS THAN OTHER ACCEPTED ENERGY
SOURCES-World Nuclear Association '13
Group Databases]
The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation can be considered extremely safe. Every year several thousand
people die in coal mines to provide this widely used fuel for electricity. There are also significant health and
environmental effects arising from fossil fuel use. To date, even the Fukushima accident has caused no deaths, and the
IAEA reported on 1 June 2011: "to date, no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation
exposure."...
COAL KILLS MORE PEOPLE EVERY YEAR, BUT IT IS IGNORED COMPARE TO MORE DRAMATIC SCENARIOS WITH
NUCLEAR POWER-Dean '11
The nuclear power debate is further hampered by the psychology of nuclear accidents. Where coal kills many more
people every year than have ever died as a result of all nuclear mishaps combined, coal kills in an elusively indirect way.
The people who die as a result of coal do so concealed in mines, far removed from the power plants they feed. Or they
have their lives cut short due to particulate emissions, perhaps hundreds of kilometres from the nearest coal-fired plant,
which is impossible to implicate in isolation. Or they will suffer as a result of climate change, perhaps decades hence.
CHERNOBYL WAS HORRIFYING, BUT, COAL KILLS MORE PEOPLE EVERY YEAR THAN THAT SINGLE ACCIDENT-Stockton
‘17
In terms of full blown nuclear disaster, there is really only one data point: Chernobyl. Which was horrifying. But in terms
of real risk? The World Health Organization estimates the disaster will claim 4,000 lives, a figure that includes everything
from direct victims to people born with genetic mutations well after the meltdown in 1986. By comparison, particulate
matter from coal power plants kills about 7,500 people in the US every year. Radiation is the shark attack of
environmental danger: An awful way to go, but far less likely than, say, a car wreck.
THE IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION ON PUBLIC HEALTH IS THE SINGLE LARGEST IMPACT OF ANY TECHNOLOGY
WE HAVE-Moore and Kanellos '11
Six thousand people die in coal mines every year in this world. Look how many people die in car accidents and many of
those are innocent passengers and pedestrians. The impact of fossil fuel combustion on public health is the single largest
impact of any technology we have.
BY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE 25 MELTDOWNS EACH YEAR TO CAUSE MORE DEATHS THAN
ARE CAUSED BY COAL-Cohen '10
Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA
must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel meltdown
might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 meltdowns there would be no deaths, in 1 out
of 5 there would be over 1,000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all
meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year,
there would have to be 25 meltdowns each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.
NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT 100% SAFE, BUT, IS SAFER THAN OTHER ALTERNATIVES FOR GENERATING LARGE AMOUNTS
OF POWER-McGregor '04
This is not to say that nuclear power is 100 percent safe. (No form of power generation is perfectly safe.) Nuclear power
is simply safer than other alternatives for generating large amounts of electrical energy, such as oil or coal plants. This is
true, in part, because the fuel in a nuclear power plant is highly concentrated. One uranium fuel pellet—typically
measuring about 0.3-inch diameter by 0.5-inch long—can produce the equivalent energy of 17,000 cubic feet of natural
gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil. Because relatively little fuel is used, relatively little waste is produced.
AS ALL FORMS OF ENERGY GENERATION CARRY RISKS, THE CASE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY REMAINS STRONG-Acton '13
[James M.; Better Design and Oversight Will Safeguard Nuclear Plants Against Natural Disasters and Terrorism; Nuclear
Nevertheless, the case for nuclear power remains strong. All forms of energy generation carry risks. Fossil fuels, which
(for the time being at least) are nuclear energy's principal rival, carry the risk of catastrophic climate change. And as
we're seeing in Japan, we haven't eliminated all the dangers associated with nuclear power, even though accidents are
few and far between.
FOSSIL FUEL ELECTRICAL POWER PLANTS ARE MORE HAZARDOUS TO PEOPLE THAN NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS-McGregor '04
Interestingly, an article that appeared in the January-February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled "The Need for
Nuclear Power," also concludes that fossil fuel electrical power plants are actually more hazardous to people than
nuclear power plants. That conclusion, in that source, is particularly notable since Foreign Affairs is the journal of the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the CFR is a promoter of internationalism as opposed to American
independence. Yet the nuclear power option could make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil.
Written by Richard Rhodes and Denis Belier (neither of whom, by the way, is a member of the CFR), the Foreign Affairs
article notes that pollutants from coal-burning plants cause an estimated 15,000 premature deaths in the United States
every year. In fact, write Rhodes and Beller, "A 1,000-megawatt-electric (MWe) coal-fired power plant releases about
100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant." Moreover, they explain:
Running a 1,000-MWe power plant for a year requires 2,000 train cars of coal or 10 supertankers of oil but only 12 cubic
meters of natural uranium. Out of the other end of fossil-fuel plants ... come thousands of tonnes of noxious gases,
particulates, and heavy-metal-bearing (and radioactive) ash, plus solid hazardous waste—up to 500,000 tonnes of sulfur
from coal, more than 300,000 tonnes from oil, and 200,000 tonnes from natural gas. In contrast, a 1,000 MWe nuclear
plant releases no noxious gases or other pollutants and much less radioactivity per capita than is encountered from
airline travel, a home smoke detector, or a television set.
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS EXTREMELY SAFE, ESPECIALLY IN COMPARISON WITH COAL-World Nuclear Association '10
Databases]
The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation can be considered extremely safe. Every year several thousand
people die in coal mines to provide this widely used fuel for electricity. There are also significant health and
environmental effects arising from fossil fuel use....
NUKE POWER SAFE: FEAR OF NUCLEAR POWER IS IRRATIONAL
PEOPLE IRRATIONALLY RECOIL AT THE PROSPECTS OF A RARE BUT HORRIFYING NUCLEAR ACCIDENT-Dean '11
This raises another confounding element to the nuclear power debate. The cost coal exacts on our environment and our
health is steady and predictable. The cost exacted by nuclear is unpredictable and potentially intense. While there are
metrics for comparing such differential risks, psychology recoils at the prospect of a rare great disaster more than it does
a common minor disaster, even if the latter causes vastly more harm in the long run.
POPULAR CULTURE AND THE INTERNET STOKE IRRATIONAL FEARS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER-Byas ‘19
Most anti-nuclear energy Americans would protest that they do not really believe radiation can do these types of things,
but what they do believe is not that far removed from the world of the comics. While appearing somewhat more
sophisticated, movies such as 1979's China Syndrome and the recent HBO miniseries Chernobyl perpetuate irrational
fears concerning the production of electricity using nuclear fission. Another source of wild distortions of reality is the
Internet--Facebook, e-mails, websites, blogs, and the like--often perpetuating doomsday scenarios that have no basis in
fact. The damage done to the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan by the 2011 tsunami has produced such Internet
scaremongering as claiming that there has been contamination of the Pacific Ocean and that vast clouds of killer
radiation have made their way to America.
POPULAR CULTURE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO IRRATIONAL FEAR-Byas ‘19

Popular culture, from movies to comic books, has contributed greatly to the fear of nuclear power. Some of what might
be deemed anti-nuclear propaganda has involved rank demagoguery, in which the creators of it knew they were
spreading falsehoods. Sometimes the purveyors of untruths backed an ideological cause, such as more government
restrictions upon society; other times the fear of nuclear power was part of a premise to sell books and movie tickets,
not believing anyone would take the fanciful stories all too seriously.
MYTHOLOGY ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER IS SPREAD BY RADICALS AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA ALIKE-Byas ‘19
Much of the mythology of nuclear power is created by radical environmentalists such as Friends of the Earth,
Greenpeace, and the Clamshell Alliance, but it is also spread through magazines such as Time and Newsweek, movies,
television, and the like. In 1976, the very influential globalist publication Foreign Affairs provided space within its pages
for a Friends of the Earth leader, Amory Lovins, who wrote, "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken." In his article, he not
only criticized fossil fuels such as coal and oil, he inveighed against the use of nuclear power as environmentally
damaging. And even if it were "clean, safe, economic ... and socially benign, it would still be unattractive because of the
political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into."
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS ARE SEEN AS A BIGGER RISK BECAUSE THEY ARE DRAMATIC AND INTENSE, COMPELLING
EMOTION AND MORAL JUDGEMENT-Dean '11
Nuclear accidents are dramatic, intense and proximate. People involved suffer immediate debilitating radiation sickness.
Or the nearby land and air is contaminated with radioactive particles, which carry an eerily spectral threat. Whole cities
are evacuated, adding to the alarm.
Radiation also incites a specifically acute fear, perhaps because we feel powerless to defend against such an invisible and
incorrigible force. Regardless of the fact that people living near a coal-fired power plant are exposed to more radiation
from coal ash than people living near a nuclear power plant, the latter is perceived as more menacing. Some call it
"radiophobia." And as I mentioned above, deep emotions compel moral judgement.
NUCLEAR POWER IS THE VICTIM OF SCARE TACTICS AND OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE PROPAGANDA-McGregor '04
For too long the nuclear industry has been a victim of scare tactics and outrageously false propaganda. Yet truth is a
much more potent weapon than falsehood, and the truth about nuclear power is that it provides a viable and safe
means for satisfying our growing need for electricity. The looming specter of a severe energy shortage in this country
should spark an increasing demand for nuclear power on the part of Americans who don't want to be left in the dark.
And that, of course, will create a growing problem for the radical environmental lobby that is not only anti-nuclear
power but anti-development.
THE DIFFICULTIES OF NUCLEAR POWER ARE PRIMARILY POLITICAL, NOT TECHNOLOGICAL OR ECONOMIC-Alexander
'10
The difficulties with nuclear power are political not technological, social not economic. The main obstacle is a lingering
doubt and fear in the public mind about the technology. Any progressive administration that wishes to solve the
problem of global warming without crushing the American economy should help the public resolve these doubts and
fears. What is needed boils down to two words: presidential leadership.
NUKE POWER SAFE: MUST SEPARATE “NUCLEAR POWER” AND “NUCLEAR

WEAPONS” IN OUR RHETORIC
A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN CRISIS WILL NOT GENERATE A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION-McGregor '04
Nuclear power plants are based on multiple layers of defense designed to protect the environment from the radioactive
material inside the reactor core. But what happens if something goes wrong—so terribly wrong that those layers of
defense are breached? What then?
The most serious accident possible is the release of radioactive material into the environment. It is not a nuclear
explosion, for the simple reason that the uranium fuel used in a nuclear power plant does not contain a high enough
concentration of U-235 to make a nuclear explosion even theoretically possible. To make such an explosion possible, the
uranium fuel inside a reactor would have to be enriched to about 90 percent U-235, but it is only enriched to about 3.5
percent.
SHOULD NOT ALLOW HEATED RHETORIC ABOUT NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS LIKENED TO NUCLEAR WAR; THEY ARE NOT
COMPARABLE-Dean '11
Adding to this is the spectre of nuclear war. It was inevitable that the great upwelling of anti-nuclear weapons sentiment
in the 1970s and 80s would paint the civilian nuclear industry with the same brush as they did the atomic weapons that
offered humanity Mutually Assured Destruction.
This is most likely the primary motivation behind spirited anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott's stance against
nuclear power. In a recent statement released in the wake of the Fukushima crisis, she wrote:
"Nuclear power is not the answer to global warming; it is not clean, it is not green; it is not safe; and it is not renewable.
It is instead 'a destroyer of worlds'. It is time the global community repudiated it - however economically painful in the
short term that taking such a step would be. There is no other choice for the sake of future generations."
It's the "destroyer of worlds" phrase that's the giveaway. Even the most heinous nuclear accident can't compare with
the humblest strategic nuclear weapon. Yet the images of horror associated with nuclear war are often conjured in
discussions about nuclear power.
IMPORTANT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN NUCLEAR BOMBS AND NUCLEAR ENERGY-Moore and Kanellos '11
Patrick Moore: Well, actually I did feel a little lonely in that corner for a while, but I've been joined by the likes of Stewart
Brand, Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel), and (environmental author) Tim Flannery, and now we form a
fairly serious phalanx of pro-nuclear environmentalists. In fact, I'm the honorary chair of the Canadian chapter of
Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, which has 9,000 members worldwide.
As a co-founder of Greenpeace, even though I was a scientist, I made the same mistake in those days as all the rest of
my colleagues did. We kind of lumped nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons as if all things nuclear were evil. It was an
honest mistake. We were totally focused on the threat of nuclear war during the Cold War. Nuclear testing was what
Greenpeace started on and we were peaceniks, and I think it's fair to say that the antinuclear-energy movement to some
extent was formed out of the peace movement.
But in retrospect, I believe we failed to make an important distinction between the peaceful versus the destructive uses
of a technology. There are many technologies that are very good that can be used for destructive purposes. Cars can be
made into car bombs as long as you have a little bit of fertilizer and diesel oil. Machetes have killed more people than
any other weapon in the last 20 years, over a million, and yet they're the most important tool for farmers in the
developing world.
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS HIGHLY UNLIKELY
SAFETY IS CONTINUALLY IMPROVE FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; WE CAN EXPECT THAT FUTURE DESIGNS WILL YIELD
IN AN ACCIDENT ONCE IN EVERY 10 MILLION OPERATING YEARS-World Nuclear Association '10
Databases]
Concerning possible accidents, up to the early 1970s, some extreme assumptions were made about the possible chain of
consequences. These gave rise to a genre of dramatic fiction in the public domain and also some solid conservative
engineering including containment structures (at least in Western reactor designs) in the industry itself. Licensing
regulations were framed accordingly.
One mandated safety indicator is the calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage
frequency, but modern designs exceed this. US utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating
plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million.
ACCIDENTS CITED BY THE PRO IGNORE THE EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF REACTOR YEARS THAT HAVE OCCURRED
SINCE THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY STARTED-World Nuclear Association '13
Group Databases]
In avoiding such accidents, the industry has been very successful. In over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial
operation in 32 countries, there have been only three major accidents to nuclear power plants—Three Mile Island [on
March 28, 1979, in Pennsylvania], Chernobyl, [on April 26, 1986, in the Ukraine] and Fukushima [on March 11, 2011, in
Japan]—the second being of little relevance to reactor design outside the old Soviet bloc.
NUKE POWER SAFE: THERE WERE NO DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO FUKUSHIMA!
DESPITE NO DEATHS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER, THE INTERNET STOKES FEARS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER-Byas
‘19
The reality is that no deaths in the nation of Japan, in the ocean, or anywhere else were caused by radiation emitted by
the nuclear power plant at Fukushima.
Yet the fear-mongering went on. Internet messages claimed both that a cloud of radioactive material was floating on the
air currents to America, where it would pollute our edible plants, and that radiation was dispersing across the ocean and
contaminating much of the seafood in the Pacific Ocean, making it unsafe to eat. In truth, at the moment of worst
release, one could stand outside the gate of the Fukushima plant for 10 hours and only get about the same amount of
radiation that one would get from a full-body CT scan, and even the water of the 74-acre harbor outside the plant never
reached levels of radioactive contamination that would warrant not swimming there, according to the Japanese Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, which carefully monitored the situation.
NUKE POWER SAFE: THERE WERE NO DEATHS DUE TO THREE MILE ISLAND!
NOBODY WAS KILLED OR INJURED AT THE THREE MILE ISLAND PLANT IN PENNSYLVANIA-McGregor '04
According to conventional wisdom, the worst nuclear power accident in this country occurred at the Three Mile Island
plant in Pennsylvania. Yet, in that incident, nobody was killed and nobody was injured.
NUKE POWER SAFE: CHERNOBYL WON’T HAPPEN IN THE MODERN UNITED

STATES
IF SOMETHING LIKE CHERNOBYL WERE TO HAPPEN AGAIN, CONTAINMENT BUILDINGS WOULD STOP ANY RADIATION
RELEASE-McGregor '04
The worst nuclear power plant disaster in history occurred when the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine experienced a
heat (and gas)—not nuclear—explosion. If such an explosion were to have occurred in a Western nuclear power plant,
the explosion would have been contained because all Western plants are required to have a containment building—a
solid structure of steel-reinforced concrete that completely encapsulates the nuclear reactor vessel. The Chernobyl plant
did not have this fundamental safety structure, and so the explosion blew the top of the reactor building off, spewing
radiation and reactor core pieces into the air.
ALL OF THE REMAINING CHERNOBYL-STYLE NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE SCHEDULE TO BE PHASED OUT-Moore and Kanellos
'11
Yes, there are 10 in Russia and 1 in Lithuania, but they are all scheduled to be phased out. After Chernobyl, they were all
upgraded from a safety point of view. The accident at Chernobyl was a combination of ridiculous operator error.
Secondly, they built reactors without containment vessels. No one else has done that. What the Soviets did was they
took their military plutonium weapons production reactors and cookie-cuttered them all over the countryside. It was an
economic shortcut and they learned the hard way, but the safety record in the West is impeccable in terms of not
causing any harm to people.
THE ACCIDENT AT CHERNOBYL WAS A PRODUCT OF THE ORGANIZATION AND LACK OF SAFETY OF THE SOVIET
ERA-Ritch '02
[John; US Ambassador to the United Nations Organization in Vienna/International Atomic Energy Agency; Nuclear Power
Is Safe; Energy Alternatives; 2002; Gale Group Databases]
By contrast, the accident at Chernobyl in 1986 was a tragedy with serious human and environmental consequences.
Chernobyl was a classic product of the Soviet era. A gargantuan reactor lacked the safety technology, the procedures
and the protective barriers considered normal elsewhere in the world. The fire led to a massive release of radiation
through the open roof of the reactor. More than two dozen firemen died from direct radiation exposure.
CHERNOBYL'S DESIGN WAS INFERIOR, ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO MODERN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS-McGregor '04
But the design of the Chernobyl plant was inferior in other ways as well. Unlike the Chernobyl reactor, Western power
plant nuclear reactors are designed, under operating conditions, to have negative power coefficients of reactivity that
make such runaway accidents impossible. The bottom line is that the flawed Chernobyl nuclear power plant would never
have been licensed to operate in the U.S. or any other Western country, and the accident that occurred there simply
would not occur in a Western nuclear power plant.
EVEN THE HORRIBLE CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR ACCIDENT DIDN'T CAUSE AS MANY FATALITIES AS THE UNION CARBIDE
PESTICIDE PLAN DISASTER IN INDIA-McGregor '04
The circumstances surrounding the Chernobyl accident were in many ways the worst possible, with an exposed reactor
core and an open building. Thirty-one plant workers and firemen died directly from radiation exposure at Chernobyl.
Also, it is projected that over 3,400 local residents will eventually acquire and die of cancer due to their exposure to the
radioactive fallout. By comparison, within a matter of hours more than 2,300 were killed and as many as 200,000 others
injured in a non-nuclear accident when a toxic gas cloud escaped from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal,
India.
SINCE CHERNOBYL, MASSIVE ADVANCES HAVE OCCURRED SINCE WITH NUCLEAR POWER SAFETY-Ritch '02
The question is: what has been done to prevent another Chernobyl? While Chernobyl severely damaged the standing of
nuclear power, it inspired important advances in the global industry. Just as [Iraq's president] Saddam Hussein helped to
strengthen safeguards against [nuclear weapons] proliferators, Chernobyl accelerated the arrival of a stronger nuclear
safety culture. National regulatory agencies, a new World Association of Nuclear Operators and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) work together to promulgate state-of-the-art knowledge. Two years ago, a Convention on Nuclear
Safety introduced a system of peer review to detect any deviation from the high safety standards which are now the
norm.
THE BIGGEST SAFETY PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR REACTORS IS THE OLD-STYLE SOVIET REACTORS THAT STILL EXIST IN
EASTERN EUROPE-Ritch '02
For the total of some 440 power reactors (half in Europe) operating in 31 countries, and producing 17 percent of the
world's electricity, only one large safety problem remains: in three countries of the former Soviet empire some 15 plants
of the Chernobyl type are still in use. Although now equipped with safety upgrades and better trained personnel, these
reactors fall short of current standards and must be phased out as soon as alternative energy supplies can be funded and
installed.
Elimination of Chernobyl-style reactors will be an important step in ensuring that the industry will only have reactors of
the most modern design. Building on a large base of operating experience, today's reactors are engineered on the
principle of "defense in depth," ensuring against a release into the environment even in the case of a severe internal
accident. Moreover, designers believe that the newest plants would experience such an environmentally harmless event
no more than once in every 100,000 reactor-years of operation. Advanced plants now under development will have
even less risk of internal damage.
NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR POWER WASTE IS EASY TO MANAGE
NUCLEAR WASTE IS COMPACT, AND CAN BE EASILY STORED-Byas ‘19

Some, when presented with these facts, fall back to the question of what to do about nuclear waste, but this bogeyman
is easily addressed. Three authors, with backgrounds in foreign relations, psychology, and engineering, penned an op-ed
published in the New York Times last month, and they explained, "Nuclear waste is compact--America's total from 60
years would fit in a Walmart--and is safely stored in concrete casks and pools, becoming less radioactive over time." This
much waste is generated from coal-fired power plants every hour.
COMPARED TO COAL, THE STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE WILL CAUSE MANY LESS DEATHS OVER TIME-Cohen '10
The radioactive waste products from the nuclear industry must be isolated from contact with people for very long time
periods. The bulk of the radioactivity is contained in the spent fuel, which is quite small in volume and therefore easily
handled with great care. This "high-level waste" will be converted to a rock-like form and emplaced in the natural
habitat of rocks, deep underground. The average lifetime of a rock in that environment is 1 billion years. If the waste
behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over
millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the
wastes from coal-burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from
generating the same amount of electricity.
THE BARRIERS TO NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE ARE NOT TECHNICAL, THEY ARE POLITICAL-McGregor '04
Spent fuel can be safely stored on a permanent basis once a national repository is finally approved. Planned nuclear
waste storage facilities such as the Yucca Mountain site are still undergoing environmental impact studies, having
suffered numerous delays for the opening date. At present the opening of a national repository for the long-term
storage of nuclear waste is over 12 years behind schedule, and at least one government laboratory source (see
http://nsnfp.inel.gov) states that a national repository may not be available for another 20 years. But the problem is
political, not scientific.
THE WASTE PRODUCED BY NEARLY POWER IS MUCH SMALLER AND EASIER TO MANAGE THAN FOSSIL FUEL
PLANTS-McGregor '04
Moreover, the waste that is produced in a nuclear power plant is contained within the plant itself, where it can
eventually be removed for long-term storage. This is not the case with fossil fuel plants, which emit tons of pollutants
through their smokestacks into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants do not emit pollutants into the air and for that reason
they do not have smokestacks. Some nuclear power plants have cooling towers that are sometimes mistaken for
smokestacks, but those cooling towers emit water vapor.
NUCLEAR WASTE IS NOT A TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEM; WE CAN RECYCLE IT TO CREATE EVEN MORE USE OUT OF THE
FUEL-Moore and Kanellos '11
It [nuclear waste disposal] is not a problem technologically. It's called recycling, or what used to be called reprocessing.
The French, the Russians, the Japanese all use it. It is basically separating out the remaining uranium and the plutonium
that is manufactured as a byproduct and used as fuel again.
Plutonium is a fuel; we don't need to wait 250,000 years for it to decay. We can use it right away as a fuel and turn it
into fission products, which will then only have a 300-year lifespan of being radioactive. Japan just opened a $30 billion
fuel fabrication and recycling center in Northern Honshu. Japan figured out a way to take the French technology, which
is probably the leading technology, and design a system in which the plutonium never emerges as a pure product
anywhere; it's only inside, where nobody could, without dying, get it. The plutonium is separated, then before it comes
out it's recombined with uranium into what's called mixed-oxide fuel, which cannot be made into a bomb.
WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO CREATE A SOLUTION TO TO ISSUES LIKE NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE OF WE TONE DOWN THE
RHETORIC AND WORK TOWARDS A SOLUTION-Claussen '10
We really need both an interim solution and a long-term solution. And it is time for a more serious conversation in this
country about interim solutions for storing nuclear waste. I am talking, of course, about the potential of centralized dry
cask storage, especially for spent fuel that currently is kept at decommissioned plants. Today, the debate is all about
temporary vs. permanent storage. And it is getting us nowhere. It's like [Sean] Hannity and [Alan] Colmes. There is never
any resolution. We need to resolve this issue. And, I believe we will have a better chance of resolving it if we begin a new
conversation, if we ratchet down the rhetoric, and if we consider other options, such as interim storage in selected,
centralized locations, while at the same time working to make long-term storage a reality.
NUCLEAR FUEL RECYCLING CAN BE USED TO MITIGATE BOTH THE AMOUNT OF NUCLEAR WASTE TO STORE AND THE
RISK OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROLIFERATION-McGregor '04
One way to address the nuclear waste issue is to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored. Other countries,
such as France, have progressive nuclear fuel recycling programs whereby a large percentage of the unused uranium
(and the small amount of plutonium produced) in the spent fuel is salvaged and then processed into new reactor fuel.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), only 3 percent of spent fuel is actual fission byproduct waste; 96 percent
is unused uranium, and the remaining 1 percent is the unused plutonium created during the fuel cycle. The benefits of
spent nuclear fuel recycling include more efficient nuclear fuel usage, reduced chance of nuclear materials proliferation,
and less buildup of nuclear reactor waste byproducts. The benefits of making more efficient use of nuclear fuel are
obvious, yet the United States does not have a nuclear fuel recycling program in place at this time.
NUCLEAR WASTE DOES EXIST, BUT, NUCLEAR POWER YIELDS THE LEAST AND MOST EASILY MANAGED WASTE-Ritch
'02
The fact that modern reactors are immensely safe shifts attention to the question of nuclear waste. The myth is that,
regardless of reactor safety, the resulting waste is an insoluble problem—a permanent and accumulating environmental
hazard. The reality is that, of all energy forms capable of meeting the world's expanding needs, nuclear power yields the
least and most easily managed waste.
NUCLEAR WEAPON PROLIFERATION CAN BE MINIMIZED BY REUSING NUCLEAR WASTE FOR ADDITIONAL NUCLEAR
FUEL-McGregor '04
Western nuclear power reactors are constructed and engineered in a manner that minimizes plutonium build-up, and
much of the plutonium that is produced inside the reactor is used during an ordinary fuel cycle. Moreover, it should be
kept in mind that using fissile material for reactor fuel is a far better method of preventing nuclear proliferation than
storage or burying those materials. After the fissile material has been used as nuclear fuel, it cannot possibly be used for
weapons, thereby eliminating the possibility of use by potential terrorists.
TECHNOLOGY HAS EVOLVED IN THE PROCESSING AND STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE; THE ONLY QUESTIONS LEFT ARE
POLITICAL, NOT TECHNICAL-Ritch '02
Even with twice today's number of reactors, the annual global volume of liquid waste, if spent fuel were reprocessed,
would be only 9,000 cubic meters—the space occupied by a 2-meter high structure built on a soccer field. Liquid waste
from reprocessing can be vitrified into a glass which is chemically stable and subject to a variety of remarkably safe
storage techniques. Indeed, the use of those techniques in long-term storage is now more a political than a technical
question.
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: CAN’T UNINVENT THE TECHNOLOGY, SO, US

MUST LEAD
THE NUCLEAR GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE FOR GOOD, SO WE MIGHT AS WELL LEAD THE INDUSTRY-Carl ‘18
This does not argue for throwing unlimited amounts of taxpayer money at nuclear plants. But before we decide whether
or not the United States wants to have nuclear power in its future, it is essential that policy makers understand
everything at stake. This includes knowing that even if we were to exit the civilian nuclear business, the rest of the world
would not be likely to follow suit. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle for good. The only question is whether the genie
will obey our commands or those of Beijing and Moscow.
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: US INDUSTRY IS STAGNANT
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HASN’T EVOLVED OR GROWN IN THE UNITED STATES-Ford et al ‘18
The industry hasn't been able to build new power plants within budget and in a timely manner, as recent efforts in South
Carolina and Georgia illustrate. There are concerns about safety, waste management, and nuclear proliferation. And
efforts to develop advanced reactors that might meet these challenges have lagged. The industry can't afford major
research and development, and efforts by the Department of Energy, once a prime mover in reactor development, have
been moribund as a result of inadequate funding and leadership.
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: US MUST LEAD TO CONTROL WORLDWIDE

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY
THE DECLINE OF US NUCLEAR POWER DIMINISHES OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY AND NUCLEAR
MATERIALS-Ford et al ‘18
The decline of nuclear power creates huge challenges for important US policy goals on two fronts. First, national security
experts are debating the consequences of a world where China and Russia become preeminent in nuclear science and
technology, thus diminishing the ability of the United States and other western countries to set the rules for controlling
access to nuclear material and technology. In addition to deploying existing designs domestically and exporting them,
China and Russia have extensive and well-financed programs to develop the next generation of advanced, non-light
water reactor concepts, many of which were first demonstrated decades ago in US national laboratories. Unfortunately,
neither of these countries has displayed a commitment to maintaining and strengthening the international control
regime.
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
WE MUST INVEST MORE IN NUCLEAR POWER TO MAINTAIN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY-Carl ‘18
America's ability to maintain its nuclear technological capability has profound effects on its national security. The failures
in South Carolina and Georgia indicate that the United States has lost control of its nuclear destiny: without a course
correction we will see the future of nuclear power determined by China and Russia, which continue to move aggressively
in this area. China, for instance, planned to complete five new nuclear power plants in the past year alone.
The dangers should be obvious: while nuclear power plants are in many ways quite distinct technologically from nuclear
weapons, the capabilities used in domestic enrichment for civilian nuclear power plants can also be used to create
nuclear weapons. This fact has been at the core of much of the US conflict with Iran and North Korea over their "civilian"
nuclear programs. The United States has traditionally used its leadership in the supply of nuclear technologies to make it
very difficult for nuclear power plant operators to cause the technology to proliferate. Will the Chinese and Russians
share our concern for nonproliferation? Look to Pyongyang and Pakistan to find out.
MUST INCREASE NUCLEAR POWER: IMPORTANT FOR NUCLEAR-POWERED

WEAPONS SYSTEMS
THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY IS IMPORTANT TO HELP KEEP UP OUR NUCLEAR-POWERED MILITARY POSTURE-Carl
‘18
Further adding to the critical role of nuclear energy in US national security, the reactors that power our nuclear
Navy--more than 140 ships ranging from submarines to aircraft carriers--use technology virtually identical to that
powering our civilian reactors. In fact, domestic nuclear power originally grew from these naval programs. Losing the
technology and operating experience through the atrophy of our domestic nuclear power sector would mean a profound
loss of capability in our military. Whether or not we put up a wind farm or keep a coal mine operating simply doesn't
have anywhere near the same strategic dimension for US policy makers.
MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: DECOMMISSIONED PLANTS ARE REPLACED BY

FOSSIL FUELS
WHEN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS SHUT DOWN, THEY ARE REPLACED BY FOSSIL FUELS-Carl ‘18
Moreover, contrary to the claims of many greens, when nuclear plants shut down they are being replaced by fossil fuels,
not renewables. This is in large part because nuclear remains our only source of low-emission baseload power. A recent
report by Environmental Progress, an environmental group that has advocated nuclear power, finds that California's
decision to abandon nuclear technology has caused emissions to be 250 percent higher than they otherwise would have
been. This makes it incongruous, to say the least, that so many greens oppose nuclear. One might suspect that they are
more concerned with virtue-signaling and ideological purity than emissions and the environment.
A/T: NUKE POWER TOO EXPENSIVE
NUCLEAR CAN’T COMPETE IN A MARKET THAT HEAVILY SUBSIDIZES OTHER ENERGY SOURCES-Carl ‘18
As conservatives and free market enthusiasts, we are naturally tempted to say, "So what? If nuclear energy can't
compete in the free market, then it should go away." But the US electricity system is not a free market--it has never
been a free market, and frankly it has no reasonably foreseeable prospects of becoming a free market. It is, for many
reasons both good and bad, a highly regulated market that has been manipulated for many years in ways that have
profoundly damaged nuclear energy's competitiveness.
A/T: NUCLEAR POWER IS UNSAFE FOR WORKERS
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, IT IS SAFER TO WORK AT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT THAN IN
FINANCIAL SERVICES-Moore and Kanellos '11
The nuclear industry has the most culture of safety around it of any industry. In the States it's safer to work in a nuclear
plant than it is to work in either real estate or financial services, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics....
A/T: NUKE PLANT ARE TERROR ATTACKS
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WOULD BE MORE RESISTANT TO TERRORIST ATTACKS THAN VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER CIVIL
INSTALLATION-World Nuclear Association '13
Group Databases]
Since the World Trade Centre attacks in New York in 2001 there has been concern about the consequences of a large
aircraft being used to attack a nuclear facility with the purpose of releasing radioactive materials. Various studies have
looked at similar attacks on nuclear power plants. They show that nuclear reactors would be more resistant to such
attacks than virtually any other civil installations. A thorough study was undertaken by the US Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) using specialist consultants and paid for by the US Dept. of Energy. It concludes that US reactor
structures "are robust and (would) protect the fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft"....
US NUCLEAR INDUSTRY INCREASED PLANT SAFETY AFTER 9/11-World Nuclear Association '13
Group Databases]
However, while the main structures are robust, the 2001 attacks did lead to increased security requirements and plants
were required by NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to install barriers, bulletproof security stations and other
physical modifications which in the USA are estimated by the industry association to have cost some $2 billion across the
country....
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE THE HARDEST TARGETS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ARE NOT VULNERABLE TO
TERRORIST ATTACKS-Moore and Kanellos '11
Greenpeace keeps harping on the terrorist issue, but the fact is the nuclear plants in the United States were designed
from the beginning to withstand a 747 [airliner crashing into them]. They are the hardest targets in the United States
from a security point of view. They are very closely watched and monitored and they are built in such a way that they
are not really a very desirable target. The World Trade Center was a much more desirable target and so were many
other political targets and many other industrial targets. So that isn't an issue.
CON
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: COST IS THE DOMINANT ISSUE
IGNORING ALL OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS, THE COST ISSUE ALONE OVERWHELMS ALL OTHER ISSUES-Romm '13
[Joseph; US Physicist and Climate Expert; Nuclear Power Is Far More Expensive than Other Energy Alternatives; Nuclear
Since new nuclear power now costs more than double what the MIT report assumed—three times what the Economist
called "too costly to matter"—let me focus solely on the unresolved problem of cost. While safety, proliferation and
waste issues get most of the publicity, nuclear plants have become so expensive that cost overwhelms the other
problems.
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: CAN’T COMPETE WITH RENEWABLES
NUCLEAR POWER HAS A HARD TIME COMPETING WITH LOW-COST NATURAL GAS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
SOURCES-Ford et al ‘18
For much of the atomic age, the United States led the world in developing and deploying nuclear technologies. Despite
building the world's largest fleet of reactors--99 of which remain operational--and seeding most of the designs built
worldwide, US commercial nuclear development has dramatically slowed. Indeed, the nuclear power industry now faces
unprecedented--arguably existential--challenges. The nation's demand for electricity has decreased, and the power
distribution grid is rapidly becoming decentralized. Nuclear power is having trouble competing in current deregulated
energy markets dominated by low-cost natural gas and renewable energy sources.
ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR POWER WILL ULTIMATELY BECOME MORE AFFORDABLE-Natural Resources Defense
Council '13
[Nuclear Power Is Not a Sound Strategy to Fight Global Warming; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
A probable total project cost at or above $5 billion for this new reactor is certain to scare U.S. utilities and capital
investors from making an aggressive commitment to nuclear energy in the near term. Moreover, as the technologies for
renewables, energy efficiency, and industrial waste-heat regeneration continue to improve, they will become
increasingly attractive investment alternatives to nuclear power.
ANY CLAIMS THAT WIND AND SOLAR ARE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN NUCLEAR POWER ARE ABSURD-Romm '13
Already nuclear energy, the sequel, is a source of major confusion in the popular press. Consider this recent interview
between Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria and Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace [organization advocating
environmental sustainability], who is now a strong advocate for nuclear power. Zakaria asks, "A number of analyses say
that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it." Moore
replies:
That's simply not true. Where the massive government subsidies are is in wind and solar ... I know that the cost of
production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour.
That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive
with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least. Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10
times as much.
In short: That's absurd. Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100
billion in U.S. subsidies—more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar, even though they are both emerging
industries. And how can one possibly ignore the capital costs of arguably the most capital-intensive form of energy?
Moore's statement is like saying "My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don't include the mortgage."
NUCLEAR POWER CAN'T KEEP UP WITH ITS RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPETITORS-Schneider et al '13
[Mycle, International Energy and Nuclear Policy Consultant; and Antony Froggatt, Energy Consultant and Julie Hazeman,
Director of ErerWebWatch; The Steady Decline of the Nuclear Industry Demonstrates That Nuclear Power Is Not a Viable
Alternative Energy Source; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
The report also includes the first published overview of reactions to the catastrophe in Japan. But developments even
prior to March 11, when the Fukushima crisis began, illustrate that the international nuclear industry has been unable to
stop the slow decline of nuclear energy. Not enough new units are coming online, and the world's reactor fleet is aging
quickly. Moreover, it is now evident that nuclear power development cannot keep up with the pace of its renewable
energy competitors.
THE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER MAKES IT AN UNREASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO OTHER SOURCES-Romm '10
New nuclear power now costs more than double what the MIT report assumed in its base case, making it perhaps the
most significant "unresolved problem." It is easily the most important issue and is the source of much confusion in the
popular press. Consider this recent interview between Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria and Patrick Moore, one of the
cofounders of Greenpeace and now a strong nuclear advocate. Zakaria says, "A number of analyses say that nuclear
power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it." Moore replies,
"That's simply not true.... I know that the cost of production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the
United States is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of
electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least.
Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10 times as much."
NUCLEAR POWER DOES NOT FAVORABLY COMPARE WITH WIND OR SOLAR IN AVAILABILITY OR COST-Natural
Resources Defense Council '13
It is instructive to compare this "nuclear renaissance" with the current rate of growth in wind power, which is adding
about 3,000 MW of generating capacity per year. To accurately compare the two, capacity utilization must be factored
in: Assuming a favorable case, namely that by 2021 the nuclear tax credits actually stimulate 1.5 times the amount of
subsidized capacity, and with an average capacity utilization factor of 85 percent, then 0.85 x 9,000 MW = 7,650 MW/15
years = 510 MW/yr as the average annual expected growth for nuclear, but with none of it available for at least 10 years.
Even though wind has a much lower capacity utilization factor, and even assuming no further acceleration in its rate of
growth, then 0.35 x 3,000 MW x 15 yrs = 15,750 MW for wind over the same period, or at least 1,050 MW/yr, with all of
it available each year. In other words, windpower is already growing at twice the potential growth rate of nuclear over
the next decade, and the outlook for wind is for even faster growth. In a similar vein, recent dramatic improvements in
the processes for mass-producing solar photovoltaic cells suggest that by the time these subsidized new nuclear plants
are connected to the grid, distributed solar power will be a formidable, and likely superior competitor.
RENEWABLES ARE DECREASING IN PRICE, WHILE NUCLEAR POWER IS INCREASING-Carrington ‘17
[Damian; Environmental Editor for the Guardian; Renewable Energy Sources Should Replace Nuclear Power Entirely;
2017; Gale Group]
The momentum behind the revolution is straightforward: cost. While renewable energy and other energy technologies
are plummeting in price, nuclear power continues its historical trend of getting ever more expensive. Even if the UK
negotiates a sharp cut in the subsidies for Hinkley [nuclear plant], it still could not be built before 2026 at the earliest. By
then, a capacity crunch will have hit the UK as old power stations close.
Hinkley puts a lot of generation capacity in one plan, which is very risky given the financial, legal and technical obstacles
it faces. EDF, the French company leading the project, is taking on considerable financial risk, with Martin Young, an
energy analyst at investment bank RBC Capital Markets, saying the project “verges on insanity”.
WE ARE BETTER OFF SCALING UP RENEWABLE ENERGY, DUE TO COST-Stockton ‘17

The only reason that nuclear energy powers 80 percent (and falling) of France, and powered 30 percent of
pre-Fukushima Japan, is because those countries don’t have the wealth of natural resources the US has. And that’s not
just coal and natural gas (though it is mostly coal and natural gas). US solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric utilities
are growing fast, and getting cheaper. Currently, renewables generate over 13 percent of US energy.
Even people within the nuclear industry think it is an impractical choice. “You can make a pretty strong argument that
it’s really foolish to burn a resource that’s as special as nuclear energy making something as inexpensive and ubiquitous
as electricity,” says Arthur Ruggles, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee. By becoming more
efficient and scaling up renewables, society could save the uranium for cool stuff like powering interplanetary
spaceships.
NUCLEAR POWER HAS HIGH RELATIVE COST-Romm '13

Why? In a word, cost. Many other technologies can deliver more low-carbon power at far less cost. As a 2003 MIT
[Massachusetts Institute of Technology] study, The Future of Nuclear Energy, concluded: "The prospects for nuclear
energy as an option are limited" by many "unresolved problems," of which "high relative cost" is only one. Others
include environment, safety and health issues, nuclear proliferation concerns, and the challenge of long-term waste
management.
RENEWABLE CAPACITY ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN OUTPACING NUCLEAR START-UPS FOR ALMOST TWO
DECADES-Schneider et al '13
Annual renewables capacity additions have been outpacing nuclear start-ups for 15 years. In the United States, the share
of renewables in new capacity additions skyrocketed from 2 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2009, with no new nuclear
coming on line. In 2010, for the first time, worldwide cumulated installed capacity of wind turbines (193 gigawatts
[GW]), biomass and waste-to-energy plants (65 GW), and solar power (43 GW) reached 381 GW, outpacing the installed
nuclear capacity of 375 GW prior to the Fukushima disaster. Total investment in renewable energy technologies has
been estimated at $243 billion in 2010.
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: CAN’T COMPETE WITHOUT SUBSIDIES
THE ONLY WAY NUCLEAR POWER STAYS VIABLE OR COMPETITIVE IS WITH BILLIONS IN SUBSIDIES-Romm '13
What do they know that scores of utility executives and the Economist don't? Nothing, actually. Nuclear power still has
so many problems that unless the federal government shovels tens of billions of dollars more in subsidies into the
industry, and then shoves it down the throat of U.S. utilities and the public with mandates, it is unlikely to see a
significant renaissance in this country. Nor is nuclear power likely to make up even 10 percent of the solution to the
climate problem globally.
NUCLEAR POWER SUBSIDIES MASK THE TRUE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER-Union of Concerned Scientists '13
[Government Subsidies Mask the Real Costs and Risks of Nuclear Power; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
The nuclear power industry is seeking tens of billions in new subsidies and other incentives in federal climate and energy
legislation that would shift massive construction, financing, operating and regulatory costs and risks from the industry
and its financial backers to U.S. taxpayers. Congress should reject these overly generous subsidies to this mature
industry whose history of skyrocketing costs and construction overruns already has resulted in two costly bailouts by
taxpayers and captive ratepayers—once in the 1970s and 1980s when utilities cancelled or abandoned more than 100
plants, and again in the 1990s when plant owners offloaded their "stranded costs." Massive new subsidies will only
further mask nuclear power's considerable costs and risks while disadvantaging more cost-effective and less risky carbon
reduction measures that can be implemented much more quickly, such as energy efficiency and many renewable energy
technologies.
THE FACT THAT NUCLEAR POWER WON'T WORK ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SUGGESTS THAT CAN'T BE
COMPETITIVE-Natural Resources Defense Council '13
Despite the fact that a national global warming emissions cap-and-trade system would materially assist the economic
case for nuclear power, the nuclear industry has not been willing to openly advocate for such a system. This suggests
either that the industry privately lacks confidence in its own rosy claims that nuclear energy can play a big future role in
displacing carbon, or that large generating companies prefer that U.S. taxpayers shoulder the lion's share of the risk,
while they harvest the carbon savings from new nuclear plants to prolong the profitability of their polluting coal-fired
plants. Probably both explanations are true.
NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY REJECTS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AND CAN'T BE VIABLE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT
SUBSIDIES-Natural Resources Defense Council '13
The nuclear industry rejects this "level playing field" approach. Despite the public expenditure of some $85 billion on
civilian nuclear energy development over the last half century, nuclear industry lobbyists continue to aggressively seek
and obtain additional federal subsidies, so that investors in new nuclear power plants can earn a return on what would
otherwise be a dubious commercial investment. Meanwhile, these subsidies displace government funding that could
otherwise be directed toward cleaner, more competitive technologies with a much wider market potential for reducing
global warming pollution. The fastest, cleanest, and most economical solutions to global warming will come if energy
efficiency and renewable energy compete on a playing field that has been "leveled" by regulatory and taxation schemes
that compel the pricing of polluting energy alternatives at closer to their true costs to society and the environment, not
merely at their immediate costs of extraction and combustion.
ANY ECONOMIC ARGUMENT IN FAVOR IF NUCLEAR POWER IS MITIGATED BY HIGH SUBSIDIES AND DATED PRICING
MODELS-Natural Resources Defense Council '13
Existing nuclear plants can compete favorably with fossil-fuel plants because they have relatively low operation,
maintenance, and fuel costs, and their excessive capital costs have long since been forcibly absorbed by ratepayers and
bondholders. But the continuing high construction costs of new nuclear power plants make them uneconomical. In fact,
there have been no successful nuclear plant orders in the United States since 1973.
NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: INITIAL INVESTMENT IS MASSIVE

THE COSTS TO BUILD A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS STAGGERING-Natural Resources Defense Council '13
To jumpstart private investment in the first 6,000 megawatts (MW) of new nuclear power capacity, Congress granted
roughly $10 billion in new subsidies—in the form of production tax credits, loan guarantees, federal "cost-sharing," and
"regulatory risk insurance"—as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The high capital cost of constructing an individual
nuclear power plant has in the past dictated a trend toward ever larger reactor units in order to recoup the multi-billion
investments required. At a price tag of $2.5 billion to $4.0 billion each, reactors typically require a long investment
recovery period, on the order of 25-40 years. Moreover, they usually require at least a decade or more to plan, license,
and build, creating a persistent problem of economic "visibility" for nuclear reactor projects in what has now become a
more competitive and shifting energy marketplace, at least in the United States.
THE COST OF BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANTS IS SIGNIFICANT AND THE TRUE COST MAY NOT BE KNOWN FOR
YEARS-Squassoni '10
[Sharon; Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Nuclear Power Cannot Solve Climate
Change; Nuclear Energy; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
A big uncertainty is the cost of constructing new nuclear power plants. As a general rule, about two-thirds of a nuclear
reactor's cost stems from construction. Factors affecting this cost of construction include the creditworthiness of the
companies involved in building the reactors, the cost of capital (especially debt) over the next decade, the risk of cost
escalation due to construction delays and overruns, the need for additional generating capacity in a slowing economy,
and the competitive advantage of both traditional and emerging power generation technologies.
Because data from the past unfortunately provide little help in assessing future costs, the real costs of new nuclear
power plants may not be known for years. In fact, Moody's [Investors Service] stated in a special October 2007 report
that "the ultimate costs associated with building new nuclear generation do not exist today—and that the current cost
estimates represent best estimates, which are subject to change."...
MUST INCLUDE STAGGERING CAPITAL COSTS WHEN CONSIDERING NUCLEAR POWER-Romm '10
Moore's answer states a common misconception—that you can ignore capital cost when calculating the cost of energy.
His statement would be like saying, "My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don't include the mortgage." If you don't
include the capital costs, then wind and solar [energy] are essentially free—nobody charges for the fuel, and operation is
cheap. Compare this to nuclear plants, which are probably the most capital-intensive form of energy there is; also, they
run on expensive uranium and must be closely monitored minute by minute for safety reasons....
EUROPE PROVES THAT NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE EXPENSIVE AND WILL COST MORE THAN
ESTIMATED-Natural Resources Defense Council '13
If these subsidized "first mover" nuclear plants fail to produce major design and production innovations that significantly
reduce the high capital cost of subsequent nuclear power plants—and there is little evidence to date to indicate that
they will—then private investors will return to looking unfavorably on the industry once the current tax credits expire.
The cost growth already occurring in the new Areva "European" power reactor under construction in Finland is not
encouraging. The 2002 cost estimate of $2.3 billion for this 1,500 MW reactor had grown to $3.8 billion by July 2006, and
this number does not include "off-balance-sheet" costs of ¤1.5-2 billion euros ($1.92-$2.56 billion) that reactor builder
Areva has separately agreed to devote to the project.
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HAS A RECORD OF POOR FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND COST OVERRUNS; GOVERNMENTS SHOULD
NOT SUBSIDIZE THE INDUSTRY-Union of Concerned Scientists '13
[Government Subsidies Mask the Real Costs and Risks of Nuclear Power; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
Using conservative capital cost estimates ($7,085/kW including financing) and assuming eight new reactors are built
over the next 15 years, we estimate that the nuclear industry could obtain new subsidies worth in excess of $40 billion,
or $5 billion per reactor, if a broad range of industry handouts are included in pending climate and energy legislation. If
all 31 reactors for which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received or expects to receive applications are
built, total proposed subsidies to the industry could be worth between $65 billion and $147 billion. While not all
subsidies will be available to every project, the collective impact of these handouts will be large because companies will
be able to pick and choose among a wide range of subsidies best suited to a variety of partnership and financial
structures. Given the industry's poor financial track record and history of cost overruns, cancellations and bailouts,
Congress should not create a host of new federal subsidies and other incentives that will shield the industry from the
considerable costs and risks of investing in this highly risky technology by shifting those costs and risks to taxpayers.
NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: EFFICIENCY IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAVE ENOUGH ENERGY TO MAKE UP FOR A FUTURE NUCLEAR POWER
PLANT PROJECT-Carrington ‘17
2017; Gale Group]
In contrast, energy efficiency could deliver six Hinkleys’ worth of electricity by 2030, according to the government’s own
research. Four Hinkleys’ worth could be saved by increasing the ability to store electricity and making the grid smarter,
with the latter alone likely to save billpayers £8bn a year.
NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: RENEWABLES ARE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE
THE EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATIVES TO NUCLEAR POWER MAKE THE RISK/REWARD ANALYSIS OF UTILITARIANS FAVOR
BANNING NUCLEAR POWER-Flanagan '13
[Kevin A.; Ethical Considerations for the Use of Nuclear Energy; Global Ethics Network; 25 April 2016;
http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/ethical-considerations-for-the-use-of-nuclear-energy; retrieved 8
February 2020]
The debate around nuclear energy, and the consequent problems that rise there from, are often dealt with from a
utilitarian perspective, trying to minimize the harm in order to allow society to benefit from the good. The IAEA, for the
most part, adopts this approach, as a regulatory body tasked to monitor and safeguard against the inherently dangerous
nature of nuclear technology. The concept of informed consent is a foundational element to their ethical charter. The
IAEA believes that the general public must be made aware of the dangers. For example, in order to build a nuclear waste
depository, refinement facility, or power plant, the developing organization must share technical information about the
plans with the general public, providing them with the ability to protest and refuse if desired. Furthermore, the
consequences of nuclear energy programs should be equally shared, just as should the energy output, and for those that
do suffer, there should be some form or repayment to compensate for their burdens.
The nuclear energy debate does logically lend itself to a utilitarian way of thinking if the crux of the issues, as mentioned
prior, is the immense potential for energy output versus the very dangerous and potentially damaging nature of the
process. However, there is a consideration that serves to counteract this particular approach. For a utilitarian, one does
not have to completely eliminate all the harm in order to maximize the good, just minimize it to an extent that the
benefits outweigh the damages. Perhaps if nuclear energy were the only viable alternative to fossil fuel consumption
then the utilitarian approach would be a more appropriate lens from which to address this problem. This, however, is
not the case. The IEA has identified a number of other potential alternatives that, though may not be quite as efficient,
can still help promote sustainability and reduce our reliance on carbon-based energy. These are far cleaner, pose less
risk to society, and do not have the potential to pollute our planet for the next hundreds of thousands of years. This
being the case, justifying the harm in the context of the significant increase in non-emission energy is not longer
appropriate. Rather, to understand whether or not nuclear energy is morally justifiable, one must take into
consideration the two-level understanding of social justice – the impact it has on current persons and will have on future
generations.
NUCLEAR POWER MUST BE COMPARED DIRECTLY TO ALTERNATIVES AND NOT CONSIDERED IN ITS OWN RIGHT-Dean
'11
Ultimately, we need to consider what it would take for us to approve of nuclear power. How high is the bar that nuclear
power needs to clear? Perhaps if it could be reliably demonstrated to be safer than the alternatives, if it could be
cost-effective, and we could guarantee a reasonable level of control over waste and show the aggregate damage to the
environment was lower than the alternatives, then nuclear power would be permissible.
The answers to these questions will come from empirical investigation. We need to look closely at existing technologies
(like coal and gas) and emerging technologies (like solar, wind, geothermal and even thorium nuclear power) and run the
numbers.
RENEWABLES SHOULD BE THE FOCUS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE OVER NUCLEAR POWER-Romm '10
The carbon-free power technologies that the nation and the world should focus on deploying right now at large scale are
efficiency, wind power, and solar power. They are the lower-cost carbon-free strategies with minimal societal effects
and the fewest production bottlenecks. They could easily meet all of U.S. demand for the next quarter-century, while
substituting for some existing fossil fuel plants. In the medium term (post-2020), other technologies, such as coal with
carbon capture and storage or advanced geothermal, could be significant players, but only with a far greater
development effort over the next decade.
NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: RENEWABLES ARE BEST FOR A DISTRIBUTED

NETWORK
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS THE FUTURE TO CREATE A STABLE, DISTRIBUTED POWER NETWORK, NOT NUCLEAR
POWER-Carrington ‘17
2017; Gale Group]
A nuclear power station is about as useful in solving the dilemma as a 20th-century nuclear weapon is in ending a
21st-century guerilla insurgency, because a ground-level energy revolution is taking place. The old regime of large,
centralised power plants is being replaced a smart, efficient and widely distributed network, powered by increasing
amounts of renewable energy.
If that sounds radical, it’s not—it’s just how the internet works to provide fast and reliable communications. If it sounds
like a hippy dream, it’s not—New York State’s energy plan has embraced it in order to deliver 50% renewable electricity
by 2030 and a 23% cut in energy use by buildings. In the UK, this government aims to improve the energy efficiency of
just half the homes retrofitted by the last one.
RENEWABLE IS BETTER THAN NUCLEAR FOR CREATING A DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEM-Carrington ‘17
2017; Gale Group]
The government has remained adamant that Hinkley, which could provide 7% of the UK’s electricity, is a vital part of a
secure low-carbon future. But it is not just the idea of EDF’s partner, a Chinese state company, being involved that
creates security fears. Nuclear power plants are prone to shutdowns, over safety concerns or even invasions of jellyfish
into cooling waters as happened at Torness, in Scotland in 2011.
Closing down such a giant plant at short notice immediately puts the security of the nation’s electricity supply at risk.
One back-up option recently favoured by the government is to deploy farms of diesel generators, which emit large
volumes of carbon dioxide, ready to start up when needed.
Yet in a smart, distributed system, knocking out one wind turbine or solar panel is barely noticed by the grid.
The risk with Hinkley is that will it bring about the mutually assured destruction of both EDF and UK energy policy, with
an expensive, hard-to-build reactor, in which the taxpayer will end up footing the bill.
NUKE POWER BAD: TOTALITY OF PROBLEMS WILL LIMIT ITS ULTIMATE USE
A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH NUCLEAR POWER WILL LIMITS ITS CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL POWER TO
UNDER 10%-Romm '10
Nuclear power generates approximately 20 percent of all U.S. electricity. And because it is a low-carbon source of
around-the-clock power, it has received renewed interest as concern grows over the effect of greenhouse gas emissions
on our climate.
Yet nuclear power's own myriad limitations will constrain its growth, especially in the near term. These include:
Prohibitively high, and escalating, capital costs
Production bottlenecks in key components needed to build plants
Very long construction times
Concerns about uranium supplies and importation issues
Unresolved problems with the availability and security of waste storage
Large-scale water use amid shortages
High electricity prices from new plants
Nuclear power is therefore unlikely to play a dominant—greater than 10 percent—role in the national or global effort to
prevent the global temperatures from rising by more than 2°C above preindustrial levels.
NUKE POWER BAD: EXPANSION OF PROCESSED NUCLEAR WASTE INCREASES

THREAT OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND TERRORISM
THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR WASTE REPROCESSING WILL VASTLY INCREASE THE QUANTITIES OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS MATERIAL AROUND THE WORLD-Squassoni '10
A key question for the future of nuclear energy is how many countries will choose to reprocess their fuel. Some states,
such as South Korea, are interested in reprocessing to reduce the volume of their spent fuel. Japan has been
reprocessing its spent fuel to both reduce the volume and use the plutonium for fuel as part of an effort to strengthen
its energy security. Although there is much evidence that the use of mixed fuel (plutonium and uranium) in reactors is
uneconomical, some countries may use it anyway. This would vastly increase the quantities of nuclear weapons material
available around the world....
THE INCREASE OF NUCLEAR POWER NECESSARILY INCREASES PROLIFERATION-Squassoni '10

In 2008, the International Security Advisory Board of the U.S. Department of State concluded that "the rise in nuclear
power worldwide, and particularly within third world countries, inevitably increases the risks of proliferation." Only
nuclear energy, among all energy sources, requires international inspections to ensure that material, equipment,
facilities, and expertise are not misused for weapons purposes. For those countries that do not already have nuclear
programs, developing the scientific, engineering, and technical base required for nuclear power would in itself heighten
their proliferation potential. Political instability in many cases is a more prominent concern than weapons intentions. For
example, the Group of Eight states [France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and
Russia] are concerned about Nigeria's plans to develop nuclear power because of Nigeria's history of political instability.
The possibility of nuclear reactors in Yemen would raise similar concerns. Regional dynamics also play a role in increasing
risks. Especially in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, some countries might worry about and respond to the possibility
that one of their neighbors was developing a weapons program.
NUKE POWER BAD: CAN’T SCALE TO MEET ANY REAL THREATS IT CLAIMS TO
MITIGATE
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRY BARRIERS EXIST TO SCALING UP NUCLEAR POWER-Romm '10

Then there are the industry bottlenecks. Twenty years ago the United States had 400 major suppliers for the nuclear
industry. Today there are about 80. Only two companies in the whole world can make heavy forgings for pressure
vessels, steam generators, and pressurizers that are licensed for use in any OECD [Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development] country: Japan Steel Works and Creusot Forge.
Japan Steel is "the only plant in the world ... capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment
vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak." In a single year, they can currently only make "four of the
steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor." They may double capacity over the next two years, but
that won't allow the huge ramp up in nuclear power that some are projecting for the industry.
According to Mycle Schneider, an independent nuclear industry consultant near Paris, the math just doesn't work given
Japan Steel's limited capacity. Japan Steel caters to all nuclear reactor makers except in Russia, which makes its own
heavy forgings. "I find it just amazing that so many people jumped on the bandwagon of this renaissance without ever
looking at the industrial side of it," Schneider said.
NUCLEAR POWER WOULD STRUGGLE TO MEET EVEN A SMALL AMOUNT OF ENERGY CAPACITY WE NEED-Romm '10
Nuclear power will have great difficulty filling out even one of the 14 wedges needed to stabilize carbon dioxide
concentrations below 450 ppm. Indeed, merely replacing most of the existing reactors here and around the world by
2050 will be a great and costly challenge. And given a long time lag for deploying reactors and rebuilding the industry,
and the urgent need to reverse U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions growth by 2020 and then sharply reduce
emissions through 2050 and beyond, we must look seriously at carbon-free sources that might be deployed faster,
cheaper, and with less accompanying problems.
NUCLEAR POWER UNLIKELY TO BE A SERIOUSLY SOLUTION FOR POWER UNLESS THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN
REGULATION AND SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL INVESTMENT-Squassoni '10
But the reality of nuclear energy's future is more complicated. Projections for growth assume that government support
will compensate for nuclear power's market liabilities and that perennial issues such as waste, safety, and proliferation
will not be serious hurdles. However, without major changes in government policies and aggressive financial support,
nuclear power is actually likely to account for a declining percentage of global electricity generation. For example, the
International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2007 projects that without policy changes, nuclear power's share of
worldwide electricity generation will drop from 15 percent in 2007 to 9 percent in 2030.
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUCLEAR POWER TOO UNSAFE TO EXPAND
A BIG EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR POWER COULD LEAD TO NEW SAFETY CONCERNS-Squassoni '10
Concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants have played a major role in nuclear power's stagnation over the past
two decades. Newer designs are much simpler and have built-in passive safety measures. Yet a big expansion of nuclear
power could lead to new safety concerns. New suppliers from South Korea, China, and India could enter the field to
meet expanded demand, and there is some evidence that Chinese subcontractors for U.S. reactors in China have not
met some quality control standards.
THYROID CANCER IS HIGHER NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS-Epstein '10

[Samuel S.; Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Illinois-Chicago
School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; Nuclear Power Plants Greatly Increase Cancer
Rates; Nuclear Energy; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
The young aren't the only ones affected by reactor emissions. New evidence has examined adult rates of thyroid cancer,
a disease especially sensitive to radiation. Thyroid is the fastest-rising cancer in the United States, nearly tripling since
1980. This evidence proves that most U.S. counties with the highest thyroid cancer rates are within a 90-mile radius
covering eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and southern New York. This area has 16 nuclear reactors (13 still in
operation) at 7 plants, the densest concentration of reactors in the United States.
CANCER RATES SOARED NEAR THREE MILE ISLAND AFTER THE 1979 MELTDOWN-Epstein '10
Columbia University researchers showed that cancer cases within a 10-mile radius of the Three Mile Island plant soared
64% in the first five years after the 1979 meltdown. Following the federal government's party line, they claimed that
"stress" rather than radiation caused this increase. But the cat was out of the bag. Dr. Steven Wing of the University of
North Carolina published a paper using the same data confirming the radiation-cancer link.
THE HISTORICAL RECORD COUNTERS CLAIMS OF CLEAR AND SAFE ENERGY FROM NUCLEAR POWER-Sovacool '13
[Benjamin K.; Professor of Public Policy at the University of Singapore; Nuclear Accidents Are Common and Pose
Inevitable Safety Risks; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
Advocates of nuclear energy have made considerable political headway around the world in recent years, touting it as a
safe, clean, and reliable alternative to fossil fuels. But the historical record clearly shows otherwise. Perhaps the
unfolding tragedy in Japan will finally be enough to stop the nuclear renaissance from materializing.
IF YOU ABANDON THE STRICT DEFINITION OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS INCREASES
DRAMATICALLY-Sovacool '13
Under these classifications, the number of nuclear accidents, even including the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi and
Fukushima Daini, is low. But if one redefines an accident to include incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life
or more than $50,000 in property damage, a very different picture emerges.
At least 99 nuclear accidents meeting this definition, totaling more than $20.5 billion in damages, occurred worldwide
from 1952 to 2009—or more than one incident and $330 million in damage every year, on average, for the past three
decades. And, of course, this average does not include the Fukushima catastrophe.
IF YOU INCLUDE A VERY WIDE DEFINITION OF ACCIDENT TO INCLUDE INJURED OR IRRADIATED WORKERS, WE HAVE
HAD 30,000 MISHAPS AT US POWER PLANTS ALONE-Sovacool '13
Another index of nuclear-power accidents—this one including costs beyond death and property damage, such as injured
or irradiated workers and malfunctions that did not result in shutdowns or leaks—documented 956 incidents from 1942
to 2007. And yet another documented more than 30,000 mishaps at US nuclear-power plants alone, many with the
potential to have caused serious meltdowns, between the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and 2009.
CHILD CANCER RATES IS HIGHER NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES-Epstein '10
Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, has authored 23 scientific
articles since the mid-1990s documenting high local cancer rates near nukes. One study showed child cancer exceeded
the national rate near 14 of 14 plants in the eastern United States. Another showed that when U.S. nuclear plants
closed, local infant deaths and child cancer cases plunged immediately after shutdown.
A SINGLE ACCIDENT WOULD CAUSE EXTRAORDINARY DEATH AND DESTRUCTION-Sovacool '13

This state of affairs is worrying, to say the least, given the severity of harm that a single serious accident can cause. The
meltdown of a 500-megawatt reactor located 30 miles from a city would cause the immediate death of an estimated
45,000 people, injure roughly another 70,000, and cause $17 billion in property damage.
A successful attack or accident at the Indian Point power plant near New York City, apparently part of Al Qaeda's plan for
[the attacks on] September 11, 2001, would have resulted in 43,700 immediate fatalities and 518,000 cancer deaths,
with cleanup costs reaching $2 trillion.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WOULD BE IMPACTED BY A NUCLEAR MELTDOWN IN THE UNITED STATES-Sovacool '13
To put a serious accident in context, according to data from my ... book Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power, if 10
million people were exposed to radiation from a complete nuclear meltdown (the containment structures fail
completely, exposing the inner reactor core to air), about 100,000 would die from acute radiation sickness within six
weeks. About 50,000 would experience acute breathlessness, and 240,000 would develop acute hypothyroidism. About
350,000 males would be temporarily sterile, 100,000 women would stop menstruating, and 100,000 children would be
born with cognitive deficiencies. There would be thousands of spontaneous abortions and more than 300,000 later
cancers.
NUCLEAR DISASTERS OVER THE PAST THREE DECADES HAVE PROVED THAT NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT SAFE-Riccio '13
[Jim; Nuclear Policy Analyst for Greenpeace; The Fukushima Disaster Proves That Nuclear Power Risks Are
Unmanageable; Nuclear Power; 2013; Gale Group Databases]
As we saw at Three Mile Island, 1 Chernobyl,2 and now Fukushima, nuclear power is never "safe." The improbable
happens, and regulations put in place by nuclear bureaucrats are insufficient to the catastrophe. Probability will not
protect the public from the consequences of a nuclear meltdown. The nuclear industry's practice of lulling regulators
into complacency based on low probability of a meltdown is irresponsible at the least. Rather than promoting the
expanded use of nuclear power, government regulators will be lucky if they can manage the end of the nuclear age and
secure deadly radioactive wastes without more Black Swan events like the fiasco at Fukushima.\
NUCLEAR POWER WILL NEVER BE SAFE; THE ACTIVITY IS AN INHERENT DANGEROUS ACTIVITY-Riccio '13
Nuclear power is never "safe." Splitting atoms to produce heat, boil water, and generate electricity is an inherently
dangerous activity. Splitting atoms can be made less dangerous, but it can never be "safe." The 104 nuclear power plants
in the United States and the 440 operating around the world all carry the threat of a catastrophic meltdown with
devastating consequences. To claim this technology is safe is no more than atomic hubris. Nuclear power plants will fail,
and when they do, the consequences are catastrophic for individuals and society. As the codiscoverer of the DNA
molecule once put it, "the idea that the atom is safe is just a public relations trick."
THE ONLY NATIONAL ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR RISKS NEAR POWER PLANTS MADE SUSPECT CLAIMS-Epstein '10
Federal health officials, who should be responsible for tracking cancer near nuclear reactors and analyzing their nuclear
contaminants, have ignored the dangers. The only national analysis of the topic was a 1990 study mandated by Senator
Edward [Ted] Kennedy, and conducted by the National Cancer Institute. But this study was biased before it even got
started. A January 28, 1988, letter to Senator Kennedy from National Institutes of Health director Dr. James Wyngaarden
brazenly declared, "The most serious impact of the Three Mile Island accident that can be identified with certainty is
mental stress to those living near the plant, particularly pregnant women and families with teenagers and young
children." Not surprisingly, the study concluded there was no evidence of high cancer rates near reactors. No updated
study has since been conducted by federal officials.
NUCLEAR POWER NEEDS TO BE DRAMATICALLY SAFER THAN CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TO EXPAND
BEYOND ITS CURRENT PENETRATION-Lyman '13
[Edwin; Senior Staff Scientist, Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C.; Design
Changes and Increased Oversight Cannot Protect Nuclear Plants from Natural Disasters or Terrorism; Nuclear Power;
2013; Gale Group Databases]
The Union of Concerned Scientists [UCS] is neither pro- nor anti-nuclear power, but has served as a nuclear power safety
and security watchdog for over 40 years. UCS is also deeply concerned about global climate change and has not ruled
out an expansion of nuclear power as an option to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions—provided that it is affordable
relative to other low-carbon options and that it meets very high standards of safety and security. However, the
Fukushima Daiichi crisis [the meltdown following an earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011] has revealed
significant vulnerabilities in nuclear safety and has shaken public confidence in nuclear power. If we want to reduce the
risk of another Fukushima in the future, new nuclear plants will have to be substantially safer than the current
generation. To this end, we believe that the nuclear industry and the Energy Department should work together to focus
on developing safer nuclear plant designs, and that Congress should direct the Energy Department to spend taxpayer
money only on support of technologies that have the potential to provide significantly greater levels of safety and
security than currently operating reactors. The nuclear industry will have to work hard to regain the public trust.
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: RADIATION RELEASE IS A THREAT TO HUMANS
INCIDENT OR NOT, NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS RELEASE EMISSIONS THAT POSE ACTUAL HEALTH RISKS TO
HUMANS-Epstein '10
Nuclear power, frequently mentioned as one option for meeting future energy needs, would pose a health threat to
Americans if a meltdown occurred. But despite meltdowns at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and many other near
miss accidents, there is another dirty little secret the nuclear industry doesn't want you to know. Cancer risk from
nuclear plants aren't just potential risks, they are actual risks.
Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water—the same
chemicals found in atomic bomb tests. They enter human bodies through breathing and the food chain. Federal law
obligates nuclear companies to measure these emissions and the amounts that end up in air, water, and food, and to
report them to federal regulators.
INDEPENDENT STUDIES CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CANCER RATE NEAR NUCLEAR REACTORS-Epstein
'10
With government on the sidelines, it has been up to independent researchers—publishing results in medical and
scientific journals—to generate the needed evidence. Studies were limited until the 1990s, but the few publications
consistently documented high local cancer rates near reactors. Dr. Richard Clapp of Boston University found high
leukemia rates near the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts. Colorado health official Dr. Carl Johnson documented high child
cancer rates near the San Onofre plant in California.
"PERMITTED LEVELS" THINKING IGNORES HARD EVIDENCE FROM SCIENTIFIC STUDIES-Epstein '10
However, nuclear advocates consistently claim that these releases are below federally permitted limits, and thus are
harmless. But this thinking is a leap that ignores hard evidence from scientific studies. Now, after half a century of a
large-scale experiment with nuclear power, the verdict is in: Nuclear reactors cause cancer.
CLAIMS THAT LOW DOSES OF RADIATION DON'T MATTER ARE LITTLE MORE THAN A CLAIM-Epstein '10
The claim that low doses of radiation are harmless has always been just a claim. It led to practices like routine diagnostic
X-rays to the pelvis of pregnant women, until the work of the University of Oxford's Dr. Alice Stewart found that these
X-rays doubled the chance that the fetus would die of cancer as a child. Many studies later, independent experts agreed
that no dose is safe. A 2005 report by a blue-ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed hundreds of
scientific articles, and concluded that there is no risk-free dose of radiation.
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: HUGE RISKS FOR URANIUM MINERS
URANIUM MINERS HAVE A LUNG CANCER RATE SIX TIMES THOSE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION-Stockton ‘17
The only people with a truly viable argument against nuclear energy are the people who mine the fuel. “Uranium miners
seem to be the ones who have the body count you can point to,” says Lochbaum. Between 1950 and 2000, the US
government estimates the rate of lung cancer in uranium miners was six times higher than in the general population.
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: THERE *WILL* BE AN ACCIDENT!
HUMAN MISTAKES MAKE MALFUNCTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT MELTDOWNS INEVITABLE-Flanagan '13

February 2020]
Furthermore, nuclear facilities are susceptible to malfunctions that result in dangerous meltdowns. History proves that it
is impossible to fully prevent these occurrences – safeguarding against human error and natural disaster. It is a widely
accepted fact that disasters such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were not the result of broken technology, but
rather mistakes made by personnel. Furthermore, Fukushima Daichii demonstrated the impact that natural disasters can
have on a facility. All three of these events had disastrous effects. The meltdown at Chernobyl is one of the worst
examples in history as over 100,000 square kilometers of land was affected, displacing over hundreds of thousands of
people. The recent earthquake at Fukushima caused the only nuclear meltdown in history rated similarly to that of
Chernobyl on the International Nuclear Event Scale. These instances could be classified as arbitrary and infrequent, but
that is the fundamental problem. If an event so uncontrollable can threaten the livelihoods of so many people, across
generations, how can the practice be justified?
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS ARE COMMONPLACE, BOTH IN NORMAL OPERATION AND IN RESPONSE TO NATURAL
DISASTERS-Sovacool '13
Japan's nuclear crisis [the Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown on March 11, 2011] is a nightmare, but it is not an
anomaly. In fact, it is only the latest in a long line of nuclear accidents involving meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of
coolant—accidents that have occurred during both normal operation and emergency conditions, such as droughts and
earthquakes.
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: GOVERNMENT HIDES INFORMATION ON NUKE POWER

SAFETY
EFFORTS TO STUDY THE RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER HAVE BEEN HAMPERED BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION-Epstein '10
A nationwide study of current cancer rates near nukes is sorely needed. In May this year [2009], the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) quietly announced it was commissioning an update of the 1990 National Cancer [Institute]
study. This sounds like a positive step. However, the NRC has long been a harsh critic of any suggestion that reactors
cause cancer. This is not surprising, since the commission receives 90% of its funds from nuclear companies that operate
reactors.
Rather than ask for competitive bids for the cancer study, the NRC simply handed the job to the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education. Oak Ridge is an Energy Department contractor in the city that has operated a nuclear weapons
plant for over half a century. The "Institute" is merely a front for pro-nuclear forces. It has no record of publishing
scientific articles on cancer rates near reactors. The whitewash is on.
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUCLEAR WASTE IS A NIGHTMARE!
NUCLEMUST ACCOUNT FOR THE VOICES OF FUTURE GENERATIONS THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY NUCLEAR
WASTE-Dean '11
Nuclear waste also offers a unique moral challenge: by burying our waste - some of which can remain dangerous for ten
millennia or more - we expose future generations to harm. These generations are, by their nature, unable to speak with
a voice in the debate today.
Some might discount their voice or ignore it, but if you regard future humans as morally worthwhile, then you ought to
factor the dangers to them into the cost of nuclear today.
That said, the energy generated by nuclear power today, particularly if it obviates more damaging technologies, can help
strengthen our economy, drive innovation and technology, clean the environment and build a better society which will,
in turn, benefit future generations. The calculus of distant future cost/benefit is, however, complicated. As they say, it's
hard to make predictions - especially about the future.
WE HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DEAL WITH NUCLEAR WASTE-Dean '11

Furthermore, if we concede that nuclear waste exacts a cost on those nearby, and by mining and selling uranium we, as
a nation, are contributing to the production of that waste, then we hold at least some moral responsibility over that
waste. If we can offer a safer haven for that waste, then it would be morally irresponsible for us to shirk that duty.
AR BYPRODUCT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO HUMANS-Flanagan '13

February 2020]
Nuclear byproduct is extremely hazardous material. Radioactive elements behave like calcium in that they are easily
absorbed into the human body by way of the food chain – through plants, cows, and milk for example – or through
direct exposure. The human body is unable to determine between most healthy elements versus their radioactive
counterparts. So if we are exposed to a radioactive version of an otherwise healthy species, such as iodine 131, our
bodies will absorb it, unable to discriminate. Once absorbed, it can lead to cancer or genetic mutation, affecting both the
individual as well as their future off spring. These hazardous elements then take hundreds of thousands of years to
deteriorate and effectively become safe for human exposure. The most widely known example is plutonium, one of the
most poisonous substances in existence, which will take at least 240,000 years to safely decay.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE PROBLEMS HAMPER NUCLEAR POWER SCALABILITY-Romm '10
Nuclear has a number of unique problems of scalability. Siting and building that many large waste repositories will not
be easy, particularly given the difficulty that the United States has had siting a single one. On the other hand,
reprocessing all the spent fuel would require 36 reprocessing plants, and add another 1.5 to 3 cents per kWh
[kilowatt-hour] to the cost of nuclear electricity.
DESPITE 50 YEARS OF NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION, NO COUNTRY HAS BUILT A PERMANENT SOLUTION TO
STORING NUCLEAR WASTE-Squassoni '10
Nuclear reactors unavoidably generate radioactive spent fuel as waste. Some states will opt to store spent nuclear fuel
indefinitely. Others may seek to recycle it, using a technique known as reprocessing, which reduces the volume of waste
that needs to be stored but produces separated plutonium, a nuclear weapons fuel. More than fifty years since the first
reactor produced electricity, no country has yet opened a permanent site for nuclear waste (known as a geologic
repository). Such a repository is still needed, even if the recycling route is taken, because there have been significant
technical and, more important, political hurdles in finding appropriate sites.
BEYOND THE PLANTS THEMSELVES, SIGNIFICANT RISK EXISTS WITH THE FUEL REPROCESSING PLANTS-Sovacool '13
Mistakes are not limited to reactor sites. Accidents at the Savannah River reprocessing plant released ten times as much
radioiodine as the accident at Three Mile Island, and a fire at the Gulf United facility in New York in 1972 scattered an
undisclosed amount of plutonium, forcing the plant to shut down permanently.
NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUKE POWER PLANTS A TERRORIST TARGET
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT COULD CAUSE DAMAGE AS BAD OR
WORSE THAN THE FUKUSHIMA CRISIS-Lyman '13
Fukushima also demonstrated how rapidly a nuclear reactor accident can progress to a core meltdown if multiple safety
systems are disabled. A well-planned and executed terrorist attack could cause damage comparable to or worse than
the earthquake and tsunami that initiated the Fukushima crisis, potentially in even less time. And although Osama bin
Laden is gone, the terrorist threat to domestic infrastructure may actually increase over time if al Qaeda seeks to
retaliate. This is the wrong time to consider reducing security requirements for nuclear power plants, regardless of their
size. However, SMR vendors have emphasized that reducing security staffing is critical for the economic viability of their
projects. Christofer Mowry of B&W [nuclear power company Babcock & Wilcox] told the NRC in March that "whether
SMRs get deployed in large numbers or not is going to come down to O&M [operations and maintenance]. And the
biggest variable that we can attack directly ... is the security issue." A Nuclear Energy Institute representative said in a
presentation in June that "optimal security staffing levels [for SMRs] may appreciably differ from current levels."
NUCLEAR MATERIALS POSE SECURITY RISKS, BOTH IN DEVELOPING WEAPONS AND TERRORISM-Natural Resources
Defense Council '13
Although the nuclear fuel cycle emits only small amounts of global warming pollution, nuclear power still poses
significant risks to the world. In a number of countries, peaceful nuclear materials and equipment have already been
diverted to secret nuclear weapons programs, and could be again. Even worse, they are susceptible to theft by, or
eventual sale to, terrorists or international criminal organizations.
NUCLEAR STORAGE VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS-Natural Resources Defense Council '13

Storage pools of spent nuclear fuel are likewise vulnerable to terrorist attacks that could disperse lethal levels of
radioactivity well beyond the plant perimeter. The accidental release of radioactivity, whether from a reactor accident,
terrorist attack, or slow leakage of radioactive waste into the local environment, poses the risk of catastrophic harm to
communities and to vital natural resources, such as underground aquifers used for irrigation and drinking water. There
are continuing occupational and public health risks associated with uranium mining and milling, especially in areas
where such activities are poorly regulated. And underground repositories, meant to isolate high-level radioactive waste
and spent fuel from people and the environment for thousands of years, are subject to long-term risks of leakage,
poisoning the groundwater for future generations.
A/T: REGULATION/MANAGEMENT MINIMIZES RISK
YEAH, BUT, NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE BECAUSE WE VERY CLOSELY REGULATE IT, BUT, THAT MAKES IT TOO
EXPENSIVE-Stockton ‘17
So nuclear energy, not very dangerous. Three cheers for concrete, plumbing, and preventative maintenance! Now pipe
down, and listen to the irony: The nuclear industry is safe because every plant consumes billions of dollars in permitting,
inspections, materials, and specialized construction decades before producing its first jolt of current. And those costs are
exactly what keep this safe, sustainable energy source from really happening.
IN THE UNITED STATES, REGULATORY BODIES LIKE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HAVE BEEN IN THE
POCKET OF THE INDUSTRY, RESULTING IN TOOTHLESS REGULATIONS-Riccio '13
As has been well documented by the Associated Press, the New York Times, Huffington Post, ProPublica, and others, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, has been captured by the nuclear industry and has been in regulatory retreat
for over a decade. At the behest of the industry, the NRC has been busy deregulating safety standards based on the
probability that the Black Swan, i.e., a meltdown, will not occur. Sadly, these same regulators have ignored the flaws in
their risk assessments. According to NRC documents, between 42 percent and 59 percent of the most risk-significant
accident scenarios aren't even modeled in nuclear risk assessments. The NRC and the nuclear industry have relied on risk
models that leave them half blind to the very events they're attempting to avoid.
THE CURRENT NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HAS SEVERAL RISKS THAT ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY MANAGED OR
REGULATED-Sovacool '13
Unfortunately, on-site accidents at nuclear reactors and fuel facilities are not the only cause of concern. The August
2003 blackout in the northeastern US revealed that more than a dozen nuclear reactors in the US and Canada were not
properly maintaining backup diesel generators. In Ontario during the blackout, reactors designed to unlink from the grid
automatically and remain in standby mode instead went into full shutdown, with only two of twelve reactors behaving
as expected.
As environmental lawyers Richard Webster and Julie LeMense argued in 2008, "the nuclear industry ... is like the
financial industry was prior to the crisis" that erupted that year. "[T]here are many risks that are not being properly
managed or regulated."
LOW REGULATION ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING NUCLEAR POWER HAS DECREASED SAFETY-Riccio '13
Despite recognized flaws in their risk assessments, government regulators have allowed the nuclear industry to whittle
away at regulations intended to protect the public in order to reduce the cost of producing electricity with nuclear
reactors. As a result, safety has been compromised. The nuclear bureaucrats have lost sight of their safety mission and
instead have weakened nuclear plant regulations to allow reactors to run longer and harder than ever before.
Government officials have repeatedly placed corporate profit ahead of public safety. In order to increase the corporate
bottom line, the public has been exposed to greater risk while the industry is exposed to less regulation. All the while,
these corporations and captured regulators claim splitting atoms on a shoestring is "safe."
A/T: EFFICIENCY OF NUCLEAR POWER JUSTIFIES USE
THE EFFICIENCY OF NUCLEAR POWER DOESN'T JUSTIFY ITS USE OVER THE MANY FLAWS OF THE BYPRODUCT
CREATED-Flanagan '13
February 2020]
According to the 2012 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Association (IEA) anticipates close to a 35%
increase in global energy consumption by 2035, as a result of worldwide population growth and improved standards of
living in both the developing and developed worlds. This demand will be predominately met by an increased reliance on
fossil fuels. As a result, its not only prudent, but necessary, to find reasonable alternatives. As an alternative, nuclear
energy is extremely powerful and efficient. The fission of one gram of Uranium 235 produces enough output to keep a
100-watt light bulb continuously burning for over two decades, whereas burning one gram of gasoline will only generate
approximately eight minutes of light. It is also a comparatively sustainable energy source that produces virtually no
emissions. Clearly it is a very potent and efficient method.
However, the development and use of nuclear energy has its flaws, very serious ones. Despite the lack of emissions, the
process still produces a formidable amount of waste. In 1980s, for example, the three hundred reactors across the globe
produced approximately 7,620 metric tons of waste per year. As this material is extremely hazardous and takes
thousands of years to deteriorate, the current method to deal with the byproduct is long-term storage. These sites must
be left completely undisturbed, protected from acts of war and terrorism and well as from natural processes. All the
while, these facilities must be maintained in a manner that will prevent the disposed byproduct from becoming active
again. Despite our best efforts to anticipate geological and natural processes, such as glacial movements and
earthquakes, there is no certain way we can accurately predict these types of occurrences one hundred percent of the
time, especially across over thousands of years. The current storage site at Maxey Flats, Kentucky, has shifted an
unexpected two miles since its creation, and an uncontrollable reaction at the waste facility in the Ural Mountains
rendered nearly twenty square miles of land completely uninhabitable. Furthermore, consider human curiosity. There is
no way to guarantee that future generations won’t unknowingly unearth these deadly substances. This puts future
generations at risk as well. Any occurrence that challenges the structural integrity of storage sites will put those in the
surrounding area in high risk.
A/T: OVERALL RISK IS TOO LOW TO TURN AWAY FROM NUKE POWER
CANNOT RELY ON LOW RISK TO JUSTIFY NUCLEAR POWER-Riccio '13

Fukushima has reminded us, too, that probability will not protect the public from nuclear meltdowns. Long before the
disaster at Fukushima, I recommended that U.S. nuclear regulators read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan. Taleb
addresses the impact of low-probability, high-consequence events such as Fukushima and points out the psychological
trap of relying on probability to protect us. Taleb has intentionally avoided doing interviews on the Fukushima fiasco, but
wrote:
I spent the last two decades explaining ... why we should not talk about small probabilities in any domain. Science
cannot deal with them. It is irresponsible to talk about small probabilities and make people rely on them, except for
natural systems that have been standing for 3 billion years (not manmade ones for which the probabilities are derived
theoretically, such as the nuclear field for which the effective track record is only 60 years).
LOW PROBABILITY OF DISASTER PROVIDES LITTLE COMFORT TO THOSE THAT FACT THE IMPACT NUCLEAR
DISASTERS-Riccio '13
Probability provides cold comfort when reactors are overwhelmed by forces they were never designed to resist—such as
the meltdown of the radioactive fuel rods that make up the core of the nuclear reactor. But the nuclear industry and its
regulators have been doing precisely what Taleb warns against.
A/T: NUKE POWER CRITICAL TO BATTLE CLIMATE CHANGE
SEVERAL INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS WOULD HAVE TO TAKE SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY
ACTION BEFORE NUCLEAR POWER BECOMES A VIABLE SOLUTION OR ALTERNATIVE-Natural Resources Defense
Council '13
Before nuclear power can qualify as a strategically and environmentally sound approach to reducing global warming
pollution, the international nuclear industry, the respective governments, and the International Atomic Energy Agency
must also ensure that:
nuclear fuel cycles do not afford access, or the technical capabilities for access to nuclear explosive materials, principally,
separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium;
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty1 regulating nuclear power's peaceful use is reinterpreted to prohibit the spread of
latent as well as overt nuclear weapons capabilities, by barring exclusively national ownership and control of uranium
enrichment (or reprocessing) plants in non-weapon states;
the occupational and environmental health risks associated with uranium mining and milling are remedied; and
existing and planned discharges of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste are safely sequestered in
geologic repositories that meet scientifically credible technical criteria for long-term containment of the harmful
radioactivity they contain.
NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT A NEAR-TERM SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE-Squassoni '10

Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change. The need to immediately and dramatically
reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors. It
also calls for actions that span all energy applications, not just electricity. Improved efficiency in residential and
commercial buildings, industry, and transport is the first choice among all options in virtually all analyses of the problem.
Nuclear energy will remain an option among efforts to control climate change, but given the maximum rate at which
new reactors can be built, much new construction will simply offset the retirement of nuclear reactors built decades ago.
SEVERAL ISSUES HAMPER NUCLEAR POWER'S ABILITY TO SCALE UP TO BE A REAL SOLUTION TO CLIMATE
CHANGE-Romm '10
Nuclear power is hampered by a variety of problems that limit its viability as a climate strategy absent massive
government subsidies and mandates, especially in the near term. As a 2003 interdisciplinary study by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology [MIT] on The Future of Nuclear Energy concluded, "The prospects for nuclear energy as an option
are limited ... by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health
effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of
nuclear wastes."
NUCLEAR POWER CAN'T BE BUILT FAST ENOUGH TO MEET THE NEEDS OF CLIMATE CHANGE-Romm '10
To avoid the grave risks posed by global temperatures rising more than 2°C above preindustrial levels, we must stabilize
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million [ppm].
As of the end of 2007, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were already at 385 ppm. The concentration has been rising at a
rate of 2 ppm a year since 2000, which is a 40 percent higher rate than the previous two decades. Global carbon dioxide
emissions are more than 8 billion metric tons of carbon—29 billion metric tons of CO2—and have been rising some 3
percent per year. To stay below 450 ppm, the latest analysis from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
says that we should average under 5 billion tons of carbon a year for the entire century. So we need to peak in emissions
globally in the 2015 to 2020 time frame and return to 4 billion metric tons of carbon or less by 2050.
Reducing emissions to the necessary levels will require some 14 (modified) "stabilization wedges," the term coined by
Princeton's Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala for an "activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere that starts at
zero today and increases linearly until it accounts for 1 GtC/year [one billion tons of carbon] of reduced carbon
emissions in 50 years." Since the time for action is so short, the wedges probably need to be modified so that they are
squeezed into about four decades.
The most comprehensive report ever done on what one wedge of nuclear power would require is the 2007 Keystone
Center report, Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding, which was supported by the utility and nuclear industries. The report
notes that achieving a wedge of nuclear power by mid-century would require building approximately 1,000 1-GW
[gigawatt, or one billion watts] nuclear plants, which requires adding globally:
An average of 14 new plants each year for the next 50 years, as well as approximately 7.4 plants a year to replace those
that will be retired.
11 to 22 additional large enrichment plants to supplement the 17 existing plants.
18 additional fuel fabrication plants to supplement the 24 existing plants.
10 nuclear waste repositories the size of the statutory capacity of Yucca Mountain, each of which would store
approximately 700,000 tons of spent fuel.
In short, we need five decades of building nuclear plants at a rate only previously achieved for one decade—20 GW/year
during the 1980s.
In fact, since we really need to deploy all this low-carbon power in 40 years, we should build 25 GW of nuclear plants a
year.
THE LONG LEAD TIMES MAKE ANY EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR POWER OVER THE COMING YEARS AND DECADES
UNLIKELY-Schneider et al '13
With extremely long lead times of 10 years and more, it will be practically impossible to maintain, let alone increase, the
number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. The flagship EPR [European Pressurized Reactor]
project at Olkiluoto in Finland, managed by the largest nuclear builder in the world, AREVA NP, has turned into a
financial fiasco. The project is four years behind schedule and at least 90 percent over budget, reaching a total cost
estimate of €5.7 billion ($8.2 billion) or close to €3,500 ($5,000) per kilowatt.
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY NEEDS TO SHOW IS ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND IMPROVED SAFETY RECORD BEFORE WE CAN
SUPPORT IT AS A GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTION-Natural Resources Defense Council '13
Until building new nuclear power plants becomes economically viable without government subsidies, and the nuclear
industry demonstrates it can further reduce the continuing security and environmental risks of nuclear power—including
the misuse of nuclear materials for weapons and radioactive contamination from nuclear waste—expanding nuclear
power is not a sound strategy for diversifying America's energy portfolio and reducing global warming pollution. NRDC
[Natural Resources Defense Council] favors more practical, economical, and environmentally sustainable approaches to
reducing both U.S. and global carbon emissions, focusing on the widest possible implementation of end-use
energy-efficiency improvements, and on policies to accelerate the commercialization of clean, flexible, renewable
energy technologies.
A/T: NUCLEAR FUEL UNLIMITED
UNKNOWN WHETHER OR NOT ENOUGH URANIUM EXISTS TO REALLY MEET SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED
DEMAND-Romm '10
There is a great deal of controversy as to whether "peak uranium" exists, a point at which production maxes out and
then declines. The subject is beyond the scope of this [viewpoint], except to say that adding and sustaining one full
wedge of nuclear power requires a near tripling of nuclear power generation and hence greatly increasing uranium
demand. An article in the April 2008 Environmental Science & Technology concluded, "Given the broad coverage of
uranium exploration globally over the past 50 years, any new deposit discovered is most likely to be deeper than most
current deposits." What's more, "the long-term trend over the past five decades has been a steady decline in most
average country ore grades.... In terms of major production capacity for any proposed nuclear power program, it is clear
that these larger-tonnage, lower-grade deposits would need to be developed."
AVAILABILITY OF NUCLEAR FUEL MEANS THAT RELIANCE ON NUCLEAR POWER INCREASES ENERGY SECURITY
CONCERNS FOR THE UNITED STATES-Romm '10
The other related issue for the United States is where we get our uranium from. In 2006, we imported 84 percent, or 56
million pounds, of our uranium. In February, the [George W.] Bush administration signed a deal to boost U.S. imports of
Russian uranium: "The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of U.S. reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply
the fuel for new reactors quota-free." Given that Russia has used its energy exports in the past for leverage against
neighboring countries, this certainly raises energy security concerns for America.
EVEN DOUBLING OR TRIPLING OUR NUCLEAR POWER WOULD INCREASE OUR RELIANCE ON FOREIGN SOURCES FOR
NUCLEAR FUEL-Romm '10
If the United States were to significantly expand its use of nuclear power, doubling or tripling (or more) from current
levels, our dependence on foreign sources of uranium and our trade deficit in uranium would likely grow significantly. If
we seek to satisfy a significant portion of this increased demand from domestic uranium deposits, we run the risk,
indeed the likelihood, given the sorry state of regulating U.S. uranium mining operations, of repeating the environmental
debacle of the uranium boom that accompanied the build out of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the first wave of nuclear
power plant construction. Of course, for uranium mined in places like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, we may
surmise that there is no effective enforcement of environmental standards whatsoever, resulting in the likely extensive
pollution of drinking water and agricultural aquifers with heavy metals and mining chemicals such as sulfuric acid, as well
as lasting damage to the health of workers and surrounding populations.
A/T: NEW TECHNOLOGY AND COMPACT REACTORS MINIMIZE RISK
SMALL NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS ARE NO SAFER THAN LARGER REACTORS-Lyman '13
Proponents of small modular reactors (SMRs) claim that their designs have inherent safety features compared to large
reactors, and some even argue that their reactors would have been able to withstand an event as severe as Fukushima.
We find these claims to be unpersuasive. For any plant, large or small, the key factor is the most severe event that the
plant is designed to withstand—the so-called maximum "design-basis" event. Unless nuclear safety requirements for
new reactors are significantly strengthened, one cannot expect that either small or large reactors will be able to survive
a beyond-design-basis event like Fukushima. Although some light-water SMR concepts may have desirable safety
characteristics, unless they are carefully designed, licensed, deployed and inspected, SMRs could pose comparable or
even greater safety, security and proliferation risks than large reactors.
SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS ON ADDRESS SOME SAFETY CONCERNS, BUT, INTRODUCE NEW ONES-Lyman '13
Some SMR vendors argue that their reactors will be safer because they can be built underground. While underground
siting could enhance protection against certain events, such as aircraft attacks and earthquakes, it could also have
disadvantages as well. For instance, emergency diesel generators and electrical switchgear at Fukushima Daiichi were
installed below grade to reduce their vulnerability to seismic events, but this increased their susceptibility to flooding.
And in the event of a serious accident, emergency crews could have greater difficulty accessing underground reactors.

Big Sky Debate ## 2003 PF Nuclear Power PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Big Sky Debate ## 2003 PF Nuclear Power PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

March 2020 NSDA Public Forum Debate:

NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER CAN GENERATE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF

THE POWER GENERATION FROM NUCLEAR POWER IS EXTRAORDINARY-Byas ‘19

NUKE POWER GOOD: NUCLEAR POWER IS EFFICIENT

NUKE POWER GOOD: NUKE POWER IS LOW CARBON

NUCLEAR POWER IS A PROVEN LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGY-Ford et al ‘18

NUKE POWER GOOD: BETTER THAN RENEWABLES

NUKE POWER GOOD: NEW TECHNOLOGY IS SMALLER, MORE NIMBLE

NUKE POWER GOOD: CHEAPER THAN ALL ALTERNATIVES

NUCLEAR POWER IS INEXPENSIVE COMPARED TO OTHER POWER SOURCES-McGregor '04

NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE

NUKE POWER SAFE: RISKS CAN BE MANAGED

NUCLEAR PLANTS UTILIZE MULTIPLE SAFETY SYSTEMS-World Nuclear Association '10

NUKE POWER SAFE: RADIATION RELEASE RISK IS MINIMAL

RADIATION OCCURS NATURALLY IN OUR ENVIRONMENT AND IS SIGNIFICANTLY DELIVERED BY MEDICAL

NUKE POWER SAFE: MODERN TECHNOLOGY DIMINISHES CHANCE OF A

NUKE POWER SAFE: FEAR OF NUCLEAR POWER IS IRRATIONAL

POPULAR CULTURE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO IRRATIONAL FEAR-Byas ‘19

NUKE POWER SAFE: MUST SEPARATE “NUCLEAR POWER” AND “NUCLEAR

NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS HIGHLY UNLIKELY

NUKE POWER SAFE: THERE WERE NO DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO FUKUSHIMA!

NUKE POWER SAFE: CHERNOBYL WON’T HAPPEN IN THE MODERN UNITED

NUKE POWER SAFE: NUCLEAR POWER WASTE IS EASY TO MANAGE

NUCLEAR WASTE IS COMPACT, AND CAN BE EASILY STORED-Byas ‘19

MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: CAN’T UNINVENT THE TECHNOLOGY, SO, US

MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: US INDUSTRY IS STAGNANT

MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: US MUST LEAD TO CONTROL WORLDWIDE

MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

MUST INCREASE NUCLEAR POWER: IMPORTANT FOR NUCLEAR-POWERED

MUST INCREASE NUKE POWER: DECOMMISSIONED PLANTS ARE REPLACED BY

A/T: NUKE POWER TOO EXPENSIVE

A/T: NUCLEAR POWER IS UNSAFE FOR WORKERS

A/T: NUKE PLANT ARE TERROR ATTACKS

NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: CAN’T COMPETE WITH RENEWABLES

WE ARE BETTER OFF SCALING UP RENEWABLE ENERGY, DUE TO COST-Stockton ‘17

NUCLEAR POWER HAS HIGH RELATIVE COST-Romm '13

NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: CAN’T COMPETE WITHOUT SUBSIDIES

NUKE POWER EXPENSIVE: INITIAL INVESTMENT IS MASSIVE

NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: EFFICIENCY IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: RENEWABLES ARE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

NUKE POWER UNNECESSARY: RENEWABLES ARE BEST FOR A DISTRIBUTED

NUKE POWER BAD: EXPANSION OF PROCESSED NUCLEAR WASTE INCREASES

THE INCREASE OF NUCLEAR POWER NECESSARILY INCREASES PROLIFERATION-Squassoni '10

SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRY BARRIERS EXIST TO SCALING UP NUCLEAR POWER-Romm '10

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUCLEAR POWER TOO UNSAFE TO EXPAND

THYROID CANCER IS HIGHER NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS-Epstein '10

A SINGLE ACCIDENT WOULD CAUSE EXTRAORDINARY DEATH AND DESTRUCTION-Sovacool '13

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: RADIATION RELEASE IS A THREAT TO HUMANS

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: HUGE RISKS FOR URANIUM MINERS

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: THERE *WILL* BE AN ACCIDENT!

HUMAN MISTAKES MAKE MALFUNCTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT MELTDOWNS INEVITABLE-Flanagan '13

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: GOVERNMENT HIDES INFORMATION ON NUKE POWER

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUCLEAR WASTE IS A NIGHTMARE!

WE HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DEAL WITH NUCLEAR WASTE-Dean '11

AR BYPRODUCT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO HUMANS-Flanagan '13

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: NUKE POWER PLANTS A TERRORIST TARGET

NUCLEAR STORAGE VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS-Natural Resources Defense Council '13

A/T: REGULATION/MANAGEMENT MINIMIZES RISK

A/T: EFFICIENCY OF NUCLEAR POWER JUSTIFIES USE

CANNOT RELY ON LOW RISK TO JUSTIFY NUCLEAR POWER-Riccio '13

A/T: NUKE POWER CRITICAL TO BATTLE CLIMATE CHANGE

NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT A NEAR-TERM SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE-Squassoni '10

A/T: NUCLEAR FUEL UNLIMITED

NUKE POWER UNSAFE: THERE WILL BE AN ACCIDENT!