Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1
NU 08-09 p. 2 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 nuclear waste.............................................................................................................................................56
A2 Health........................................................................................................................................................57
A2 Cancer/safety............................................................................................................................................58
A2 proliferation..............................................................................................................................................59
2AC T-alternative............................................................................................................................................60
A2 T-alternative..............................................................................................................................................61
***Negative***..............................................................................................................................................62
T-alternative: 1NC..........................................................................................................................................63
T-Alternative cards.........................................................................................................................................64
1NC Energy Transition FL.............................................................................................................................65
1NC Energy Transition FL.............................................................................................................................66
Nuclear power releases GHG-Extensions.....................................................................................................67
Nuclear power releases GHG-Extensions......................................................................................................68
Plan doesn’t solve other emissions-extensions...............................................................................................69
Renewable sources solve in SQ-extensions....................................................................................................70
Plants wont be built fast enough-extensions...................................................................................................71
1NC Economy FL...........................................................................................................................................72
1NC Economy FL...........................................................................................................................................73
1NC Solvency FL...........................................................................................................................................74
1NC Solvency FL...........................................................................................................................................75
1NC Solvency FL...........................................................................................................................................76
1NC Solvency FL...........................................................................................................................................77
1NC Solvency FL...........................................................................................................................................78
Uranium will run out-extensions....................................................................................................................79
Prolif extensions.............................................................................................................................................80
Meltdowns-Extensions...................................................................................................................................81
Meltdowns-Extensions...................................................................................................................................82
Nuclear waste extensions................................................................................................................................83
Nuclear waste extensions................................................................................................................................84
Terrorism DA: 1NC 1/3..................................................................................................................................85
Terrorism DA: 1NC 2/3..................................................................................................................................86
Terrorism DA: 1NC 3/3..................................................................................................................................87
Terrorism Extensions-links.............................................................................................................................88
Terrorism extensions-facilities are vulnerable................................................................................................89
Terrorism extensions-plants vulnerable..........................................................................................................90
Terrorism extensions-turns the case................................................................................................................91
Politics links-Bush bad...................................................................................................................................92
2
NU 08-09 p. 3 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
***Affi rm ativ e* **
3
NU 08-09 p. 4 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 1/1 6
Contention One: Inherency.
Congress will not act to support nuclear power-Recent Climate
change bill proves its too politically contentious
Christian Science Monitor, June 5th
Economic risks imperil climate bill, 2008, lexis
While there's broad agreement on the need for more investment in solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energies,
expected amendments on the needs to relaunch a nuclear power initiative could also further splinter support for the bill.
On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a long-awaited license application to build a nuclear waste
dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada - a move that supporters say is essential to revive the nuclear-power industry.
Nuclear-power advocates hope to use the global-warming bill as a vehicle for reviving the industry. They make the case
that without a significant increase in nuclear power, it will be impossible to lower carbon emissions without a blow to
US living standards.
"It's time we begin the nuclear renaissance in America and Yucca Mountain is a vital step," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of
South Carolina, in a statement after the announcement. "If Congress is serious about reducing carbon emission,
nonemitting nuclear energy must play an even larger role than it does today."
Many Democrats are wary of risking the support of some environmental groups over nuclear power. Majority leader
Reid, a longtime opponent of a nuclear-waste dump in his state, charged that DOE filed the application with only about
35 percent of the work done to justify it.
"Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be," he said on Tuesday. Republicans say
they are holding out for a wide-ranging debate over the global-warming bill, including many amendments. Democratic
leaders worry that some amendments, including those over nuclear power, could undermine support for the bill.
Commenting on the diverse coalition of lawmakers now supporting the bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California said:
"They need a certain amount to stay on it. I need a certain amount not to get off it. We're looking for that sweet spot."
4
NU 08-09 p. 5 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 2/1 6
Contention two are the advantages:
5
NU 08-09 p. 6 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 3/1 6
US Leadership is critical: We can lead the world to a low-carbon
transition to solve climate change worldwide
Claussen and Diringer, 7
Eilleen, president of the pew center on global climate change and Elliot, director of international strategies of the pew center on global
climate change, Vol 29, Harvard international Review, A new climate treaty- US leadership after Kyoto
http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1594/
The urgency of the task is irrefutable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment concluded
with 90 percent confidence that human activity is warming the planet and warned of irreversible and potentially
catastrophic consequences if emissions continue unabated. Politically as well, the next few years represent a critical
window for action. The emission limits assumed by most industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol expire in
2012. What momentum the treaty has achieved and the multibillion-dollar carbon market it has spawned may well be
lost unless a new agreement can be forged.
Any new treaty will be environmentally effective and politically feasible only to the degree that it successfully engages
and binds all of the world’s major economies. Coming to terms with cost and equity while also bridging the gap
between developed and developing is an extraordinary diplomatic challenge. Meeting it will require fresh thinking and
approaches, a genuine readiness to compromise and a collective political will that, while perhaps emerging, is by no
means assured. What is needed above all right now is US leadership, for no country bears greater responsibility for
climate change, nor has greater capacity to catalyze a global response.
Responsibility is measured most directly in terms of emissions, and it should surprise no one that history’s greatest
economic power is also the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. By the same token, the tremendous enterprise,
prosperity, and technological prowess that have contributed so heavily to the atmospheric burden uniquely qualify the
United States to lead a low-carbon transition. Indeed, no nation has done more to advance scientific understanding of
the causes and consequences of global warming. But thus far, the US contribution to the global effort largely ends
there.
For the first time, however, US politics are beginning to favor real climate action. Even before the recent Democratic
takeover of Congress, momentum was building for mandatory measures to reduce US emissions. As on many other
environmental issues, individual states are leading the way, with California once again at the forefront. Business
leaders, sensing that carbon constraints are inevitable and fearing a patchwork of state rules, are increasingly calling for
a uniform national approach. Ten major companies, including General Electric, DuPont, and Alcoa, recently joined
with four nonprofits in the US Climate Action Partnership to push for mandatory emission limits. Several bipartisan
bills now before Congress would mandate emission cuts of 60 to 80 percent by 2050.
With the enactment of mandatory US measures probably occurring no later than 2010, the global politics of climate
change will be thoroughly transformed. Having resolved what it will do at home, the United States will know far better
what it can commit to abroad. To avoid losing competitive advantage to countries without emission controls, the United
States will have a strong incentive to rejoin and strengthen the global climate effort.
For the struggling multilateral process, the United States’ re-entry cannot come soon enough. After President Bush’s
outright rejection of Kyoto, other countries rallied around the treaty and brought it into force. But without the United
States and Australia, the protocol encompasses only about one third of global emissions. Even if all countries meet their
targets, which is unlikely, global emissions in 2012 would still be 30 percent higher than in 1997, when Kyoto was
negotiated. While talks on post-2012 commitments have begun, under the treaty’s terms they contemplate targets only
for those countries that already have them. European leaders are floating ambitious numbers, but Japan and others have
made clear they are not taking on new commitments without movement by the United States and major developing
countries. The political reality is that the negotiations are headed nowhere, unless they are somehow broadened or
linked to bring in the other major players.
With the United States back at the table, there could be a way forward. Once the largest emitter says it is ready to deal,
China and other emerging economies might also be willing. Under this more hopeful scenario, what could a future
climate treaty look like? To begin with, it must commit all the major economies. Today, 25 countries account for 85
percent of global emissions (as well as 70 percent of global population and 85 percent of global GDP).
Environmentally, no long-term strategy to cut global emissions can succeed without them. Politically, it is imperative
that all major economies be on board. All share concerns about costs and competitiveness, and none can sustain an
ambitious climate effort without confidence that others will contribute their fair share. This requires binding
commitments. But a new treaty should be flexible, allowing countries to take on different types of commitments.
Circumstances vary widely among the major economies, and the policies that can address climate change in the context
of national priorities will vary from one to the other. Countries will need different pathways forward.
6
NU 08-09 p. 7 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 4/1 6
Nuclear power will solve climate change
Spencer, 8
April 18th, Jack, Heritage Institute, Nuclear power critical to meeting President’s Greenhouse gas objectives
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_1898.pdf
On April 16, President George W. Bush established a national goal to stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by
2025. His plan would first slow, then stop and reverse the rate of emissions of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse
gases. ThePresident placed much of the onus of meeting these objectives on the electricity generation industry. While
wind, solar, and clean-coal technologies may eventually affordably contribute to the nation’s production of emissions-
free power, the best way to achieve the President’s vision today is through nuclear power. Nuclear power already
provides the United States with 20 percent of its electricity and 73 percent of its CO2-free electricity. If the objective is
an affordable near-term reduction of CO2 and other atmospheric emissions, then the importance of nuclear power
cannot be overstated. It is safe and affordable technology that is currently being used around the world.
7
NU 08-09 p. 8 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 5/1 6
We’ll Isolate Two impacts:
First is Global Nuclear War: Left unchecked, global climate change
will cause resource wars across the planet. This will destabilize
Asia and Europe, heighten tensions over Kashmir, and cause a
massive conflagration.
Schwartz and Randall 3
Peter Schwartz, cofounder and chairman of Global Business Network and Doug Randall, senior practitioner at
GBN, “Abrupt Climate Change”, October 2003
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate change, many countries’
needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to
offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed
their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is
already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply. Or, picture Japan, suffering from
flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eying Russia’s Sakhalin Island
oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive agricultural
processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China – all armed with nuclear weapons – skirmishing at their
borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might
fight over fishing rights – leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be
likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can expect
conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation. The Danube touches twelve
nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs through seven.
In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The United States and Canada may become one, simplifying
border controls. Or, Canada might keep its hydropower—causing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea
may align to create one technically savvy and nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a unified block – curbing
immigration problems between European nations – and allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its
abundant minerals, oil, and natural gas may join Europe. In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is
inevitable. As cooling drives up demand, existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity of energy
supply – and a growing need for access -- nuclear energy will become a critical source of power, and this will
accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national
security. China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, France, and Germany will all have nuclear weapons
capability, as will Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North Korea.
Second is Biodiversity
Climate change will cause massive biodiversity loss and species
extinction.
Nature 4
Feeling the heat: Climate change and biodiversity loss, Jan 8th
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html
Many plant and animal species are unlikely to survive climate change. New analyses suggest that 15–37% of a sample
of 1,103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050. For
some of these species there will no longer be anywhere suitable to live. Others will be unable to reach places where the
climate is suitable. A rapid shift to technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases, combined with carbon
sequestration, could save 15–20% of species from extinction.
8
NU 08-09 p. 9 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 6/1 6
The Impact is the end of civilization and all life on earth
Diner 1994 (David N. Judge Advocate General’s Corps of US Army, Military Law Review, Lexis)
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death
-- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a
single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race.
n67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species
perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why
should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like
all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species
could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would
become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to
find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In
addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value
that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to
man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment,
and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical
processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian
value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined,
and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man
in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly
useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75
Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4.
Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass
extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing
the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist
species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more
stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more
successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by
several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which
if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have
artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the
risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions
of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction,
with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem
collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster.
Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings,
[hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
9
NU 08-09 p. 10 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 7/1 6
Scenario two is oil dependence
10
NU 08-09 p. 11 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 8/1 6
Failure against global terrorism will cause the end of civilization
Alexander 3
ALEXANDER, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United
States, 2003, Yonah, Washington Times, August 27,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030827-084256-8999r.htm,
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the
international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to
the very survival of civilization itself.
Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant
rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns.
It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19
al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers.
Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism
triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of
intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements
(hudna).
Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern
terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"?
There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's
expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of
morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological
warfare.
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of
conventional and unconventional threats and impact.
The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super
Terrorism (e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber) with its serious implications concerning national,
regional and global security concerns.
11
NU 08-09 p. 12 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 9/1 6
Advantage 2 is the Economy:
Shocks in the housing, stock and commodity markets continue to dampen the economy but it will
pick up next year, the president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve said Monday.
Housing prices have further to fall, financial markets remain fragile and commodity prices threaten to
fuel inflation, Janet Yellen said in a speech at the University of California San Diego Economics
Roundtable.
"The earlier policy easing by the Federal Reserve will help cushion the economy from some of
the effects of the shocks," she said, "And the fiscal stimulus program is helping at present. Over
time, the drag from housing will wane and credit conditions should improve."
12
NU 08-09 p. 13 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 10/16
Current incentives are insufficient to spur the type of nuclear
renaissance needed to save the economy
Spencer, 8
Jack, research fellow in nuclear energy at the Thomas A Roe institute for economy policy studies at the heritage foundation, Heritage
foundation, Nuclear power needed to minimize Lieberman-warner’s economic impact, 2008
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm
Top 10 List for a Sustained Reemergence of Nuclear Power
The massive increases in nuclear power over the next 25 years on the scale described in some S. 3036 analyses might
be unrealistic, but the right policies could at least move the nation in the right direction. Although the Energy Policy
Acts (EPACTs) of 1992 and 2005 provide some reform and incentives to boost the nuclear industry, they do not provide
the systemic overhaul that would be necessary to meet the demands required to satisfy Lieberman–Warner. Existing
legislation assures that the U.S. will build six to 10 reactors, which does almost nothing to mitigate the consequences of
CO2 caps.
13
NU 08-09 p. 14 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 11/16
The impact is extinction-An economic collapse would cause a
global nuclear war destroying civilization.
Bearden, 2000
T. E. Bearden, Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, June 24, 2000
http://www.cmaq.net/en/node.php?id=17547
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the
stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the
arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to
be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan
and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate
China — whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In
addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other
nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few
nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is
almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as
possible.
As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD
arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many
decades.
14
NU 08-09 p. 15 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 12/16
Thus the plan: The United States Federal government, through
congressional legislation, will do the following: Open the Yucca
Mountain Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository, remove political and
legal barriers to nuclear fuel reprocessing, and open commercial
nuclear markets.
15
NU 08-09 p. 16 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 13/16
Contention 3 is Solvency:
16
NU 08-09 p. 17 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 14/16
Nuclear power is the only solution to global warming and oil
dependence and will spur an energy revolution to tackle the
problem. The plan will help to rally the public behind other global
warming solutions.
Third Way Project, 7
Matt Bennet, VP for public affairs, Rob keast, senior policy advisor, John Dyson, Third way trustee, Third Way Middle Class project,
“Another inconvenient truth, solving global warming and energy security requires nuclear power”, April 23rd, 2007
http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/84/Third_Way_Nuclear_Memo.pdf
However, few in the environmental community or their allies in policymaking have championed—indeed, most have
actively opposed—the one climate change solution that can make a substantial difference in the near term: nuclear
power. This raises a serious problem—there does not seem to be a realistic path to resolving climate change that does
not significantly expand nuclear energy, but most of those at the frontlines of fighting climate change have not yet
embraced it. We must resolve this contradiction if we are to confront global warming effectively. In this paper, we
argue that nuclear energy in America is one important key to solving the global warming crisis—not just in terms of
reducing dangerous emissions, but in breaking the logjam in the public domain over climate change. Of course we are
aware that there are outstanding issues or questions regarding nuclear energy, particularly with regard to waste storage
and plant safety. But the flipside of that equation is that some of the other technologies and ideas being offered as
solutions to climate change are too small, costly or far off. We cannot allow any large-scale potential fixes to be taken
off the table. If, indeed, the existence of the earth as we know it hangs in the balance, we are confident that nuclear
safety and waste issues can be resolved to most people’s satisfaction. This memo makes the case for why progressive
policymakers and activists should support nuclear power expansion in the United States. We offer three reasons: 1.
Expanding nuclear power will make a difference in addressing the problem of global warming. 2. Embracing nuclear
power by progressive leaders would have a galvanizing impact on the public, demonstrating the severity of the climate
change problem and the need for everyone to make hard choices. 3. Moving forward efficiently on nuclear power could
help provide momentum to take additional steps to curb carbon emissions.
1. Expanding Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming The facts are quite simple, and they speak for
themselves: nuclear power is the only mature, major source of electric power in the United States that is essentially
carbon-free.† In 2005, nuclear power made up 19 percent of our energy mix and prevented 3.32 million tons of sulfur
dioxide, 1.05 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 681.9 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States
alone.1 But that is today. US electricity demand is predicted to rise by 45% by 2030. That means 350,000 megawatts of
new generation capacity must be built to meet that demand. Unless this country changes course, coal will constitute a
larger share of new power generation than it would otherwise.2 One reason is that growth of domestic nuclear power
production had, until very recently, totally stalled. There are currently 103 licensed reactors‡ in the US, at 65 plant sites
in 31 states. Most have gotten or will get 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
But no new nuclear power plants have been brought online since 1996, and since 1973, every new plant order—totaling
more than 100—has been cancelled. Moreover, industry consolidation has meant that fewer firms are operating nuclear
plants.3 There is some good news of late—the 2005 Energy Policy Act provides various incentives which support
currently operating plants and encourages future construction. Since the 2005 law was passed, 13 companies have filed
licenses with the NRC to build as many as 31 new reactors.4 But the growth in nuclear production is not without
controversy—serious debates relating to nuclear waste and plant safety continue. Still, we think the risks are worth
taking. America has grappled with a nuclear waste dilemma for decades—it is a serious and currently unsolved
problem, but we believe it can be managed safely in the short term and handled effectively in the long term. As for
plant safety, there is simply no such thing as completely risk-free power, and nuclear is no exception. That being said,
our nuclear sites are some of the most fortified, well-protected industrial spaces in the nation. The industry’s security is
regulated and closely watched by on-site federal inspectors and overseers, and the FBI has categorized nuclear plants as
“difficult targets.” Furthermore, a new generation of plant design and technologies has made nuclear facilities more
efficient, safe and less costly than in the past.5 Yet despite good safety records and a recent resurgence in interest in
new reactors, on its current trajectory, total nuclear generation is projected to grow from 780 billion kilowatt-hours in
2005 to only 896 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030 (that is, if the new reactors cited above come on-line). Even with this
projected increase, the nuclear share of total electricity generation is expected to fall from 19 percent in 2005 to 15
percent in 2030. We would need another four plants (for a total of 35 new plants) simply to maintain nuclear power’s
current piece of the US energy pie.6 So from a global warming perspective, the American energy production outlook is
not great now, and, without substantial change, it is projected to get much worse, as this chart demonstrates: That, in
our view, is an unacceptable outcome. We must face the reality that a growing population and evolving technology will
place ever-increasing demands on our energy production. We believe that policymakers and advocates should set as a
general goal that we expand non- or low-carbon sources, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and “clean coal,” to meet much
17
NU 08-09 p. 18 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 15/16
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<…………….Card continues…….>>>>>>>>>>>>
of the new demand for power that our expanding nation and modern life require. As a specific and measurable target,
we should aim to advance nuclear energy to a point where it provides for 25 percent of America’s energy. This is an
ambitious but achievable goal; unless we get closer to it, meeting increased energy needs while dealing with the reality
of climate change is probably a pipe-dream.
2. Embracing Nuclear Power Can Help Rally the Public on Climate Change Recent public opinion polling reveals a
seeming paradox: Americans believe that global warming is real, but they don’t feel any urgency about dealing with it.
A Pew poll in January found that 77% of Americans believe there is solid evidence of global warming, and the same
number believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious problem.7 But another Pew poll of global
attitudes found that only 19% of Americans who had heard of global warming expressed a great deal of personal
concern over the issue, the smallest percentage of any country in a survey of 15 nations. And climate change ranks 20th
out of 23 in Pew’s annual list of policy priorities (only 38% rank it as a top priority).8 Another January poll found that
less than half of respondents said global warming worries them “a great deal” or “a good amount.”9 In short, awareness
of climate change is high, but urgency—and demand for government action—is low. In part, this is because the
solutions that many offer seem incommensurate to the scope of the problem. For example, almost no one disagrees that
we should use more solar power, but solar makes up 1/30th of 1 percent of current US power usage. It is a very
important but very small part of a near- or even mid-term solution. We simply must have more mature, low-carbon
power generation methods if we are to address this issue aggressively over the next several decades. One glaring
problem is the failure on the part of leading climate change advocates—from most environmental groups to leading
Members of Congress—to support the only existing, mature energy source that can almost immediately help save our
planet from catastrophic climate change. Consider what the three largest US environmental groups are still saying about
nuclear power: [I]t is completely unacceptable that the U.S. government is pushing for more nukes when most of the
rest of the world is saying "so long." Unfortunately, the nuclear power industry in its present state suffers from too
many security, safety, and environmental exposure problems and excessive costs to qualify as a leading means to
combat global warming pollution.11 – Natural Resources Defense Council The Sierra Club opposes the licensing,
construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process …12 – Sierra Club Clearly, the
mainstays of the movement still have not even lost their hostility to nuclear power, much less acknowledged the role
that nuclear power can play a major part of the solution to global warming. And despite what some are calling a
“nuclear renaissance” that is pegged to the climate issue and rising power needs, anti-nuclear forces have worked hard
to muddy the waters. For example, the following polling question was asked on a survey by the Civil Society Institute:
Experts have proposed a range of long-term and short-term solutions to the energy crisis and the threat posed by global
warming. Some solutions— including solar energy and wind power—are already in place and would be expanded in
the near-term. Others—such as increased conservation—could start immediately. Still others—including nuclear power
and hydrogen fuel cells—would take a decade to put in place, or longer. What is your view of the best way for America
to proceed? Would you say... the energy and global warming problem is happening now. We need most of the emphasis
placed on immediate and near-term solutions that will deliver fast results or we need most of the emphasis placed on
solutions that will deliver results a decade from now or later? Not surprisingly, 62% of respondents to this sharply
slanted and misleading question said we need to take action now. Never mind that solar and wind are not mature power
generation techniques and simply cannot provide “near term solutions” to our CO2 problems. Many advocates have
taken this approach, attempting to keep the debate fixed solely on conservation and renewable sources. And no one
denies that both are crucial to addressing the problem of global warming—a solution is impossible without real shifts in
public behavior and a huge increase in our investment in renewable energy. But we believe that by talking only about
conservation and renewable energy, advocates have undercut the seriousness of their own argument on climate change.
The American public may not know much about base-load capacity, but they understand that we are not going to get
out of our CO2 problem by relying solely on wind farms or geothermal power at this point in time. And they may be
reluctant to make hard changes in their own lives—or demand policy fixes to climate change—until environmentalists
start making some tough choices too. Indeed, if advocates were to embrace nuclear power, which many have spent
their careers fighting, it would help prove to the public that a dramatic shift in our thinking as a nation is required when
our way of life or very existence may be at risk. Some individuals in the movement have begun doing precisely that.
The most prominent is Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore, who told Congress: If nothing is done to revitalize the
American nuclear industry, the industry’s contribution to meeting US energy demands could drop from 20 percent to 9
percent. What sources of energy would make up the shortfall? Very likely, the US would turn to an even greater
reliance on fossil fuels.13 And in an editorial last year, Dr. Moore put the fundamental point quite plainly: “Nuclear
energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a
growing demand for power. And these days, it can do so safely.”14 Patrick Moore is not alone—a few other movement
leaders, and some environmental advocates in Congress—have begun to come to this conclusion. They include Stewart
Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, and Hugh Montefiore, former Chairman of Friends of the Earth. Senator
Barbara Boxer, one of the staunchest environmentalists in Congress and Chair of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, recently noted the trend toward nuclear on her committee and has signaled a possible shift in
18
NU 08-09 p. 19 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1AC 16/16
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<…………….Card continues…….>>>>>>>>>>>>
her own thinking about nuclear power as it relates to climate change.15 Some of the groups are starting to come around
as well. Environmental Defense calls nuclear power one of many “wedges” to be used in attacking global warming, and
they note that if “the unresolved concerns can be answered satisfactorily, however, nuclear power may one day have the
potential to be a factor in slowing the emissions that contribute to global warming. For that reason, it is worth pursuing
continued research.”16 The public appears ready for this change. A January 2007 poll by UPI of nearly 7,000
Americans found that 62 percent agree that new nuclear plants should be built.17 This is precisely the same percentage
of Americans that an LA Times survey last summer found would support “the increased use of nuclear power as a
source of energy in order to prevent global warming.”18 The data are clear: Americans understand that climate change
is real, and they are ready to embrace nuclear power as one piece of the long-term solution. But the public will need to
hear from environmental advocates to seal the deal. 3. Moving Forward Efficiently on Nuclear Power Can Help
Provide Momentum to Fight Carbon Emissions One important reason that nuclear power production stalled in the
1990s involved the extraordinary inefficiencies built into the system. Every new plant was required to Third Way
Memo 7 have its own unique design, leaving this nation with a patchwork of different reactors, using different parts and
procedures. This massively drove up costs of construction and made operation and maintenance much more expensive
and difficult, because parts were not interchangeable and personnel had to learn a new plant every time they went there.
By contrast, countries like France, which draws 78 percent of its power from nuclear energy, built essentially the same
two plants throughout the country. Thankfully, the United States seems to have learned a lesson from that experience,
and it now seems standardized reactor design will be the way of the future for domestic production of nuclear power
plants. This will not only reduce the costs of construction, operation and maintenance, it will improve training,
efficiency and, ultimately, safety.19 Furthermore, many new reactors will be built where plants already exist, further
increasing efficiencies and reducing start-up and construction costs. Other efficiencies were built into the 2005 Energy
Policy Act, which is helping to fuel some resurgence of nuclear power development in the US. Still, more needs to be
done. Both to deepen the impact that nuclear power itself can have on US emissions and to demonstrate to the public
that we can make real progress on climate change, policymakers must ensure that new nuclear power plants can be
constructed safely, affordably and efficiently. There are other reasons as well to push for a resurgence of nuclear power.
First is energy security. While the United States has almost unlimited quantities of coal, we are becoming increasingly
dependent on others for fuels like natural gas. The public is acutely aware of America’s need for great energy security,
and reducing our dependence on natural gas for power generation would both boost that security and make gas more
affordable for consumer heat and industrial uses. Since 2000–2001, wholesale prices for natural gas have jumped as
much as three-fold, largely as a result of the growth in the use of natural gas for electric generation that began in the
1990s. This has cost thousands of Americans their jobs as companies shutdown, lay off employees, or move their
production overseas where natural gas is far cheaper. It has also raised the cost of natural gas to a point where many
families cannot afford to heat or cool their homes.
19
NU 08-09 p. 20 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
20
NU 08-09 p. 21 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 Mc ca in
Mccain has empirically flip flopped on this issue-he cant be
counted on to get nuclear through congress
LA times, July 1st
Campaign 08: McCain energy record is on/off, he’s flip flopped on nuclear power, ethanol, and offshore drilling, l.n
On his recent energy tour, McCain also called for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, a goal he is prepared to back with
billions of federal dollars.
That too is a change for the four-term senator. Earlier in his congressional career, McCain was a consistent opponent of
subsidies for nuclear power, voting five times in the 1990s against taxpayer aid for research on new-generation nuclear
reactors. As recently as 2003, McCain opposed federal loan guarantees to help the nuclear industry finance new plants.
Three years ago, however, McCain began pushing more taxpayer assistance to help develop nuclear power as part of
his proposed legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public Citizen estimated a version of McCain's bill would authorize more
than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new nuclear plants.
Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that has worked with McCain to
fight pork-barrel spending, said that kind of aid used to trouble the senator.
"Sen. McCain was a leader in going after subsidies," Ellis said. "Government support for an industry that can't stand on
its own two feet seems to contradict his record."
McCain now defends the subsidies as essential to kick-start the industry. "If we're looking for a vast supply of reliable
and low-cost electricity, with zero carbon emissions and long-term price stability, that's the working definition of
nuclear energy," he said recently.
21
NU 08-09 p. 22 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
22
NU 08-09 p. 23 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
23
NU 08-09 p. 24 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
24
NU 08-09 p. 25 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
25
NU 08-09 p. 26 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
26
NU 08-09 p. 27 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
27
NU 08-09 p. 28 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
28
NU 08-09 p. 29 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
29
NU 08-09 p. 30 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
30
NU 08-09 p. 31 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
31
NU 08-09 p. 32 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 o th er s ou rc es so lv e in s qu o
Other sources will not be able to provide power during peak times,
we need nuclear power to fill the gap.
Farivar 7
Cyrus, 11/13, Global warming, subsidies fuel a nuclear renaissance, WIRED magazine
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2007/11/nuclear_economics
"You can't build wind and solar fast enough and their inherent production profiles are different enough such that you
can't use them for base-load generation," said Michael Carboy, an analyst with Signal Hill.
"Wind power doesn't always occur during peak demand times and you don't have solar in the evening. You need
something that's going to be a stable contributor to 20 or 30 percent of the daily power loads that's going to sit there and
run all day long."
32
NU 08-09 p. 33 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
Nuclear power will make hybrid cars cost-effective and decrease oil
usage
Council on Foreign relations, 6
National security consequences of US Oil dependency: report of an independent task force
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pdf
The Task Force believes that the United States should make greater use of nuclear power. With high natural gas prices
and concern about CO2 emissions, there is renewed interest in nuclear power. In the near term, new nuclear plants will
be ordered and built only if the U.S. government is successful in making clear progress on nuclear waste management,
creating a reasonable regulatory framework for licensing nuclear plants with acceptable safety risk, and meeting
proliferation concerns. In turn, the additional electricity supply will eventually make it easier to achieve greater
substitution of electricity for oil, such as through use of plug-in hybrid cars and other costeffective electricity-based
transportation technologies.
33
NU 08-09 p. 34 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
Extinction
34
NU 08-09 p. 35 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly
powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the
institutions of tenuous, democratic ones.
Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to
proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears
increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are
associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern
themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do
not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not
ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction
to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run
they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to
their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties
since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely
because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the
only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
35
NU 08-09 p. 36 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
36
NU 08-09 p. 37 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
37
NU 08-09 p. 38 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
By now most well-informed people are aware that global oil production may soon reach its all-time
peak, and that the consequences will likely be severe.
Already many important oil-producing nations (such as the United States, Indonesia, and Iran)
and some whole regions (such as the North Sea) are past their production maximums. With nearly
every passing year another country reaches a production plateau or begins its terminal decline.
Meanwhile global rates of oil discovery have been falling since the early 1960s, as has been
confirmed by ExxonMobil. All of the 100 or so supergiant fields that are collectively responsible for about
half of current world production were discovered in the 1940s, '50s, '60s, and '70s. No fields of comparable
size have been found since then; instead, exploration during recent years has turned up only much smaller
fields that deplete relatively quickly. The result is that today only one new barrel of oil is being
discovered for every four that are extracted and used.
World leaders are hampered in their ability to assess the situation by a lack of consistent data. Proven
petroleum reserve figures look reassuring: the world has roughly a trillion barrels yet to produce,
perhaps more; indeed, official reserves figures have never been higher. However, circumstantial evidence
suggests that some of the largest producing nations have inflated their reserves figures for political
reasons. Meanwhile oil companies routinely (and legitimately) report reserve growth for fields
discovered decades ago. In addition, reserves figures are often muddied by the inclusion of non-
conventional petroleum resources, such oil sands - which do need to be taken into account, but in a
separate category, as their rates of extraction are limited by factors different from those that constrain the
production of conventional crude. As a consequence of all of these practices, oil reserves data tend to give
an impression of expansion and plenty, while discovery and depletion data do the opposite.
This apparent conflict in the data invites dispute among experts as to when the global oil peak is
likely to occur. Some analysts say that the world is virtually at its peak of production now; others contend
that the event can be delayed for two decades or more through enhanced investment in exploration, the
adoption of new extraction technologies, and the substitution of non-conventional petroleum sources (oil
sands, natural gas condensates, and heavy oil) for conventional crude.
However, there is little or no disagreement that a series of production peaks is now within sight -
first, for conventional non-OPEC oil; then for conventional oil globally; and finally for all global
conventional and non-conventional petroleum sources combined.
Moreover, even though there may be dispute as to the timing of these events, it is becoming widely
acknowledged that the world peak in all combined petroleum sources will have significant global
economic consequences. Mitigation efforts will require many years of work and trillions of dollars in
investment. Even if optimistic forecasts of the timing of the global production peak turn out to be accurate,
the world is facing an historic change that is unprecedented in scope and depth of impact.
38
NU 08-09 p. 39 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
These efforts will be challenging enough in the context of a stable economic environment. However, if
prices for oil become extremely volatile, mitigation programs could be undermined. While high but
stable prices would encourage conservation and investment in alternatives, prices that repeatedly
skyrocket and then plummet could devastate entire economies and discourage long-term
investment. Actual shortages of oil - of which price shocks would be only a symptom - would be
even more devastating. The worst impacts would be suffered by those nations, and those aspects of
national economies, that could not obtain oil at any price affordable to them. Supply interruptions would
likely occur with greater frequency and for increasing lengths of time as global oil production gradually
waned.
Efforts to plan a long-term energy transition would be frustrated, in both importing and exporting countries.
Meanwhile the perception among importers that exporting nations were profiteering would foment
animosities and an escalating likelihood of international conflict.
In short, the global peak in oil production is likely to lead to economic chaos and extreme
geopolitical tensions, raising the spectres of war, revolution, terrorism, and even famine, unless
nations adopt some method of cooperatively reducing their reliance on oil.
39
NU 08-09 p. 40 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
40
NU 08-09 p. 41 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
41
NU 08-09 p. 42 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
42
NU 08-09 p. 43 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
43
NU 08-09 p. 44 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
44
NU 08-09 p. 45 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
45
NU 08-09 p. 46 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
New Mining operations will solve any supply issues. Even “low-
grade” deposits are economically viable and will be mined to
support an expansion of nuclear power.
Rhodes, 7
Chris, Doctorate from Sussex, former professor @ London University, full bio @ fresh-lands.com, March 27th, Energy Balance, “Not
enough Uranium for nuclear expansion?”
http://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2007/03/not-enough-uranium-for-nuclear.html
While there is undoubtedly a major issue of how quickly uranium might be brought into the enlarging marketplace that
nuclear expansion will bring, this is surely underpinned by the matter of how much uranium there is in the world to be
feasibly extracted, milled and fabricated into nuclear fuel rods. As a rough estimate, there are about 3 million tonnes of
uranium as a known reserve. Assuming the world gets through 65,000 tonnes of it per year, that would equate to 3 x
10^6/65,000 = 46 years worth. However, this is a rather simplistic assumption, although it has been widely
promulgated as evidence that nuclear has no future. Along these lines, if the current level of nuclear power were
expanded to provide all the world's electricity the uranium would run out in under 10 years. However, reserves are not
the same as resources, and as that existing uranium reserve becomes depleted, more of the resource will be mined and
processed, even well below the 0.035% (350 parts per million) uranium concentration limit below which currently the
resource is not considered economically worth including among the figures for the reserve. This is the uranium
concentration found at the Rossing Mine in Namibia, which is regarded as low-grade ore. Since the energy cost of
annually mining 3,000 tonnes of uranium from Rossing is 1 Petajoule of energy, and this much uranium can provide 15
Gigawatt-years of power (around 470 Petajoules) , the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is close to 500.
The average concentration of uranium in the Earth's crust is around 2.7 parts per million, and soils associated with
phosphate minerals can contain around 50 - 500 ppm of uranium. Some shales and phosphate rocks contain 10-20 ppm
of uranium, and given their abundance, are estimated to contain a total quantity of uranium perhaps 8,000 times that of
the rocks currently being explored. Even mining these very low-grade ores would allow the recovery of energy with an
EROEI of 15-30. Hence, unlike conventional oil, it appears that a shortage of uranium per se, is not a problem.
However, it may well be that the shortage of oil and gas used in the mining and processing of uranium is a problem,
and that supplies of these other fuels will compete with the other purposes that society currently has for them, including
electricity production, but mainly for transportation.
46
NU 08-09 p. 47 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
47
NU 08-09 p. 48 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 t er ro ri sm (Ai rc ra ft attac k)
Even another 9/11 would not be enough to breach containment at a
plant
Murray, 6/16
National Review, Ian, senior fellow at the competitive enterprise institute, Nuclear power, yes please, EBSCO
There is some concern that nuclear power plants present an attractive target for terrorists. After the attacks of Osama
bin Laden’s impromptu air force in 2001, the Department of Energy commissioned a study into the effects of a fully
fueled jetliner’s hitting a reactor containment vessel at maximum speed. In none of the simulations was containment
breached.
Safety tests prove that an air attack would barely make a dent in
the concrete
NY Times, 2
Jan 21st, Nuclear reactors as terrorist targets
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E5DB153BF932A15752C0A9649C8B63
Nuclear plants are built so robustly that they would seem to present a difficult target for terrorists. Their containment
domes have walls three to six feet thick made of concrete reinforced with embedded steel bars and a half-inch steel
liner. The reactor itself, tucked way down inside the dome, is protected by another thick slab of reinforced concrete. In
one dramatic test years ago, a fighter jet was catapulted into a mock containing wall at nearly 500 miles per hour. The
plane disintegrated into a pile of dust; the wall suffered a two-inch scratch.
48
NU 08-09 p. 49 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 t er ro ri sm ( ge ne ri c)
Terrorists wont target nuclear plants
Murray, 6/16
National Review, Ian, senior fellow at the competitive enterprise institute, Nuclear power, yes please, EBSCO
Given the massive investment that would be needed to compromise a nuclear power station, it is highly unlikely that
terrorists would seek to attack such a hard target—especially when their revealed preference has been for soft targets
offering the maximum possible loss of civilian life. The world’s experience with nuclear power, therefore, has
confounded the arguments of the environmentalists. It has proven safe and reliable—and if you still need convincing of
this, remember that the second-worst nuclear incident, Three Mile Island, saw a destroyed reactor confined with no
casualties.
49
NU 08-09 p. 50 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 t er ro ri sm ( ge ne ri c)
Attack Scenario #2: A small, explosive-laden airplane could be crashed into any of the three targets. Crashing into the
reactor containment would do little damage, and the dry-storage casks are highly resistant, being of heavy concrete.
Because the airplane can come in from above, it might do some damage to a storage-pool facility, so that is probably
the most vulnerable of the three.
However, some years ago General Electric did a comprehensive study of the consequences of a terrorist attack on a
fuel-storage pool, using high explosives. The conclusion was that the potential for off-site release of radioactivity was
negligible. Even a thousand pounds of high explosive delivered by a small plane crashing into the pool would not
seriously disrupt the fuel assemblies, which sit under nine or more feet of water - especially since the explosive would
probably be triggered when the plane hit the roof of the building, well above the pool.
Attack Scenario #3: A small-arms assault would give time for an orderly shutdown of the reactor, or at least a scram,
and for outside assistance to arrive. From a terrorist's viewpoint, successful penetration to commit significant sabotage
would be very uncertain, at best. In particular, we understand that bringing a shut-down reactor immediately back to
full power and beyond would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. See a Attack Scenario #6, below, for more
considerations.
Attack Scenario #4: As we understand it, U.S. reactor buildings are designed to absorb an attack by medium artillery
without radiological risk to the public. It would take more than a few artillery rounds to penetrate any of the thick
concrete structures on a reactor site, and that is before any sensitive components within the buildings are hit. Again, the
low probability of causing any harm to the public and the high probability that the perpetrators would be apprehended
render this attack mode unlikely to be selected.
Attack Scenario #5. It might be relatively easy to topple the power lines leading into a nuclear plant - in fact, a severe
ice storm can have the same effect. For this reason, all nuclear plants have redundant backup systems to permit an
orderly shutdown if external power is lost. Specifically, there are two independent, separately-located diesel generator
systems, each with enough fuel to provide operational power for thirty days or more. In addition, there are batteries that
can provide emergency power long enough to achieve a safe shutdown, with a cushion of some hours to get the diesels
restarted.
Thus the first five of the above attack modes are unattractive to terrorists who want to inflict major damage. Even a
"successful" attack would cause little more than damage to physical structures at the plant, and perhaps a temporary
shutdown of the reactor, but would not in any credible scenario lead to a major radiation release.
The remaining three scenarios deserve more careful consideration, as loss of cooling or supercriticality could occur.
Attack Scenario #6. The primary protection against sabotage from within lies in the stringent clearance and screening
procedures that are in place. Nevertheless, a group of technically sophisticated and ruthless infiltrators could do serious
damage, if they could disable most or all of the non-collaborating employees (operators, security forces, maintenance
technicians, and on-site NRC monitors). Given enough time and materials, such a group could presumably create a
criticality accident, or loss of cooling, or both, leading to destruction of the reactor. As far as we know, such an attack
cannot be completely ruled out, but it would be many times harder to plan and execute than the World Trade Center
attack, and would require far greater technical expertise, along with detailed inside knowledge.
Off-site release of some radioactivity would seem to be a distinct possibility in this scenario, but is by no means assured
(as explained above, the Chernobyl dispersal mechanism is not available). The radiological consequences might well be
similar to those of TMI - i.e., negligible. Difficulty in infiltrating the power-plant organization, combined with
uncertain infliction of major damage, should motivate terrorists to seek easier routes to their goal.
Attack Scenario #7: Nuclear Regulatory Commission News Release No. 01-112 reports that "detailed engineering
analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed." Pending such an analysis, a reasonable speculation is
that only a direct hit on the reactor building by one of the heavy engines of the incoming airplane could crack the thick
concrete containment. This would require extremely precise guidance of the aircraft by the hijacking pilot. Whether the
engine would enter the containment is an open question. Even if it does, the reactor vessel is unlikely to be breached,
because it is a heavy steel shell surrounded and protected by thick concrete radiation shielding.
We know of no credible way, in this scenario, that the reactor could go supercritical to cause a steam explosion. The
chain reaction would shut down, for a number of reasons, but cooling could be lost. If so, and if, as is likely, the reactor
had been operating for some time, the decay heat could melt the core. Since a steam explosion following loss of cooling
is unlikely (see Loss of cooling, above), the hot fuel might melt through the reactor vessel after a few hours, and spread
out in the substructure, where it would eventually freeze in a subcritical configuration.
Some fraction of the more volatile fission products (such as iodine, cesium, and the noble gases) might escape to the
atmosphere. With a timely and orderly evacuation of nearby residents, in accordance with the site's emergency plan, no
serious off-site irradiation of the public should occur.
The burning jet fuel would scarcely aggravate the situation - it would have been distributed over a considerable area,
and would have burned off well before the molten reactor fuel penetrated the reactor vessel.
50
NU 08-09 p. 51 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 t er ro ri sm ( ge ne ri c)
Attack Scenario #8: A jetliner could be crashed into spent-fuel storage. Typically, used reactor fuel is allowed to cool
for five or ten years under nine or more feet of water in storage pools, and then, pending final disposition, is transferred
to interim dry-cask storage. Both of those facilities tend to be on-site, near the reactor. Such a building, being just one
of several low buildings in the complex, would be even trickier for the terrorist-pilot to identify and hit than the reactor
containment.
While this event may not yet have been fully analyzed, in light of the World Trade Center disaster, informed
speculation can give a reasonable picture of the potential consequences.
The dry casks are made of concrete or thick steel, providing good protection of their contents. If the dry-storage facility
were directly hit by the jetliner, a few of those casks might be broken, but the ensuing fire could not disperse a large
amount of radioactivity. Nevertheless, local evacuation might be called for. A lesson to be learned from Chernobyl is
that the only significant off-site exposure to the public was due to food contaminated with iodine-131, which seeks the
thyroid. Since I-131 has a half-life of only eight days, there is very little of it remaining in spent fuel that has been
stored for more than a few weeks. Therefore - especially with evacuation of nearby residents - radiological risk to the
populace would be very small.
The storage pools are somewhat more vulnerable, although they are not pushovers. For one thing, much of their water
would have to be removed if a significant release of radioactivity were to occur, and many such pools are largely
below-grade. The burning jet fuel by itself will not remove the water, since it will float on top as it burns, without
boiling off much water.
For a limiting, worst-case event, one can visualize the hijackers achieving such a precise hit that the aircraft splashes
out most of the water and crushes an appreciable fraction of the fuel elements stored there. Perhaps the shock wave lifts
some radioactive debris out of the pool and scatters it near the building. Jet fuel runs into the pool and burns. The fire is
not hot enough even to melt the reactor fuel pellets, but radioactive fission products, especially the more volatile ones,
could escape from the disrupted fuel assemblies and be transported into the atmosphere by hot gases from the jet-fuel
fire.
A local evacuation would undoubtedly be ordered. However, such dispersal of radioactivity from a storage pool would
in no way be comparable to what happened at Chernobyl; the stored fuel is five or ten times less radioactive than fuel
from an operating reactor, and most important, as mentioned above, the iodine-131 would be largely or entirely missing
because of its short half-life. No significant irradiation of members of the public would be expected, the most serious
consequences probably being anxiety and possibly panic.
Since the storage-pool building is not nearly as hardened as a reactor containment, a jetliner considerably smaller than a
767 might be sufficient to disrupt it. This fact alone might make the pool a more attractive target than the reactor itself.
Summary: A terrorist assault on a nuclear power plant would attract a lot of attention, and some types of attack could
conceivably prompt a limited evacuation. However, the chance of dangerous release of radioactivity to the atmosphere
is remote, and there seems to be no credible way that any members of the public could be seriously irradiated. Many
easier and more lucrative targets (where damage could be comparable to the World Trade Center disaster) are available
for terrorists to attack. Our ultimate protection against terrorism will lie in lack of terrorists, not in scarcity of targets.
51
NU 08-09 p. 52 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 t er ro ri sm ( ge ne ri c)
Nuclear plants are impenetrable fortresses, terrorists would never
be able to successfully attack
Cravens, 8
Gwyneth, writer, associate editor for Harpers magazine, terrorism and nuclear energy: understanding the risks,
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx
U.S. nuclear power plants, which are subject to both federal and international regulation, are designed to withstand
extreme events and are among the sturdiest and most impenetrable structures on the planet—second only to nuclear
bunkers. Three nesting containment barriers shield the fuel rods. First, metal cladding around the rods contains fission
products during the life of the fuel. Then a large steel vessel with walls about five inches thick surrounds the reactor
and its coolant. And enclosing that is a large building made of a shell of steel covered with reinforced concrete four to
six feet thick. After the truck-bomb explosion at the World Trade Center in 1993 and the crash of a station wagon
driven by a mentally ill intruder into the turbine building (not the reactor building) at Three Mile Island, plants
multiplied vehicle and other barriers and stepped up detection systems, access controls, and alarm stations. Plants also
enhanced response strategies tested by mock raids by commandos familiar with plant layouts. These staged intrusions
have occasionally been successful, leading to further corrections. On September 11, all nuclear facilities were put on
highest alert indefinitely. Still more protective barriers are being erected. The NRC, after completing a thorough review
of all levels of plant security, has just mandated additional personnel screening and access controls as well as closer
cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies. Local governments have posted state troopers or the National Guard
around commercial plants, and military surveillance continues.
What if terrorists gained access to a reactor? An attempt to melt down the core would activate multiple safeguards,
including alternate means of providing coolant as well as withdrawal of the fuel rods from the chain reaction process.
52
NU 08-09 p. 53 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 M el td ow ns
Western plant designs are safe. They operate the opposite of the
way the Chernobyl reactor did.
Murray, 6/16
National Review, Ian, senior fellow at the competitive enterprise institute, Nuclear power, yes please, EBSCO
As to the safety of nuclear power stations, there is now a significant history to demonstrate that these concerns are no
longer justified, even if they may have had some precautionary legitimacy in the 1970s. It has long been recognized
that the Chernobyl accident was caused by features unique to the Soviet-style RBMK (reactor bolshoy moshchnosti
kanalniy—high-power channel reactor). When reactors of that sort get too hot, the rate of the nuclear reaction increases
—the reverse of what happens in most Western reactors. Moreover, RBMK reactors do not have containment shells that
prevent radioactive material from getting out. The worse incident in the history of nuclear power, Chernobyl killed just
56 people and made 20 square miles of land uninhabitable. (The exclusion zone has now become a haven for wildlife,
which is thriving.)
53
NU 08-09 p. 54 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 M el td ow ns
Meltdowns will not happen-new safety measures check another
disaster
Cravens, 8
Gwyneth, writer, associate editor for Harpers magazine, terrorism and nuclear energy: understanding the risks,
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx
A similar meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant in 1979—one caused by equipment malfunctions and human
failure to grasp what was happening and respond appropriately—involved no large explosion, no breach. The reactor
automatically shut down. Loss of coolant water caused half the core to melt, but its debris was held by the containment
vessel. Contaminated water flooded the reactor building, but no one was seriously injured. A minute quantity of
radioactive gases (insignificant, especially in comparison to the radionuclides routinely discharged from coal-fired
plants in the region) escaped through a charcoal-filtered stack and was dissipated by wind over the Atlantic, never
reaching the ground. The people and land around the plant were unharmed.
In response, the NRC initiated more safeguards at all plants, including improvements in equipment monitoring,
redundancy (with two or more independent systems for every safety-related function), personnel training, and
emergency responsiveness. The commission also started a safety rating system that can affect the price of plant owners'
stock. The new science of probabilistic risk assessment, developed to ensure the safety of the world's first permanent
underground nuclear waste-disposal facility, has led to new risk-informed regulation. In over two decades no
meltdowns have occurred and minor mishaps at all nuclear plants have decreased sharply. Cuts by Congress in the
NRC's annual research budget over the past 20 years—from $200 million to $43 million—may have considerably
compromised ongoing reforms and effectiveness, however.
54
NU 08-09 p. 55 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 nucle ar w as te
55
NU 08-09 p. 56 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 nucle ar w as te
Yucca Mountain wont leak-it would store the waste above
groundwater, making any leakage delayed and slow
Whipple, 96
Chris, vice president of ICF Kaiser, an environmental engineering, remediation and consulting company. He was chairman of the
National Academy of Sciences’s Board on Radioactive Waste Management and now heads the Environmental Protection Agency’s
advisory committee on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, “Can nuclear waste be stored safely at Yucca Mountain?”, June 1996
http://www.zerocarbonnow.org/papers/nuclear/Sci_Am/Yucca_Mountain_1996_10696072B.pdf
A great deal of effort has gone into discovering and analyzing the ways in which humans could be exposed to
radioactive materials from a waste repository. Dozens of scenarios have been offered. In the one that has received the
most attention, waste canisters corrode, and water leaches radioactive elements (radionuclides) out of the spent fuel or
vitrified high-level waste, then carries them into the groundwater. People would be exposed if they used the water for
any of the usual purposes: drinking, washing or irrigation. A repository at Yucca Mountain, however, would have some
inherent resistance to such occurrences. The repository would store the waste above the groundwater, in what is known
as unsaturated rock. Depending on how much water flows down through the mountain and contacts the waste, the
movement of radioactive materials into groundwater can be delayed for a long time and can occur at a limited rate in
comparison to what might occur at a site below the water table.
56
NU 08-09 p. 57 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 H ealt h
Background radiation from a plant is smaller than pretty much any
other source-it cannot cause health problems
Cravens, 8
Gwyneth, writer, associate editor for Harpers magazine, terrorism and nuclear energy: understanding the risks,
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx
Natural background radiation: 240 millirem worldwide (300 millirem in the United States). The earth's core is a natural
reactor, and all life evolved within a cloud of radiation stronger than background radiation is today. Cosmic rays,
sunlight, rocks, soil, radon, water, and even the human body are radioactive—blood and bones contain radionuclides.
Exposure is higher in certain locations and occupations than in others (airline flight personnel receive greater than
average lifetime doses of cosmic radiation).
Diagnostic medical radiation: 40 millirem (60 millirem in the United States). This is the largest source of manmade
radiation affecting humans. Other common manmade sources include mining residues, microwave ovens, televisions,
smoke detectors, and cigarette smoke—a pack and a half a day equals four daily chest x-rays.
Coal combustion: 2 millirem. Every year in the United States alone, coal-fired plants, which provide about half of the
nation's electricity, expel, along with toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases, 100 times the radioactivity of nuclear
plants: hundreds of tons of uranium and thorium, daughter products like radium and radon, and hundreds of pounds of
uranium-235. Radioactive fly ash, a coal byproduct used in building and paving materials, contributes an additional
dose. Coal pollutants are estimated to cause about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United States.
Nuclear power: 0.02 millirem (0.05 in the United States). The Environmental Protection Agency, whose standards are
the world's strictest, limits exposure from a given site to 15 millirem a year—far lower than average background
radiation.
For radiation to begin to damage DNA enough to produce noticeable health effects, exposure must dramatically
increase—to about 20 rem, or 20,000 millirem. Above 100 rem, or 100,000 millirem, diseases manifest. Whether low-
dosage radiation below a certain threshold poses no danger and may in fact be essential to organisms is controversial
(the Department of Energy began the human genome project to help determine if such a threshold exists). If exposure is
not too intense or prolonged, cells can usually repair themselves. Radiation is used widely to treat and to research
illnesses.
57
NU 08-09 p. 58 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 Canc er /s afe ty
There is zero medical evidence to back up claims of cancer deaths
because of nuclear plants
Murray, 6/16
National Review, Ian, senior fellow at the competitive enterprise institute, Nuclear power, yes please, EBSCO
There are suggestions that hundreds or thousands more may die because of long-term effects, but these estimates are
based on the controversial Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) theory about the effects of radiation. Official EPA doctrine,
based on the LNT theory, holds that no level of radiation is safe, and that the maximum allowable exposure to radiation
is an extremely stringent 15 millirems (mrem) per year. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, researchers discovered that
600,000 mrem was a sufficient dose of radiation to kill anyone exposed to it, and 400,000 mrem killed half the people
exposed. Symptoms of radiation sickness develop at 75,000–100,000 mrem. By extrapolating linearly, the model holds
that there is no level of radiation at which someone is not adversely affected (hence “nonthreshold”). Therefore, if a
million people are exposed to a very low dose of radiation—say 500 mrem—then 6,250 of them will die of cancer
brought on by the exposure. At least according to the theory. But this is mere assumption, with no epidemiological
evidence to back it up. As Prof. Donald W. Miller Jr. of the University of Washington School of Medicine wrote in
2004, “Known and documented health-damaging effects of radiation—radiation sickness, leukemia, and death—are
only seen with doses greater than 100 rem [which is to say, 100,000 mrem]. The risk of doses less than 100 rem is a
black box into which regulators extend ‘extrapolated data.’ There are no valid epidemiologic or experimental data to
support linearly extrapolated predictions of cancer resulting from low doses of radiation.” In fact, Americans are
naturally exposed to around 200 mrem a year of background radiation. In some places around the world that
background level is much higher. In Ramsar, Iran, thanks to the presence of natural radium in the vicinity, residents get
26,000 mrem a year, but there is no increased incidence of cancer or shortened lifespan. This is a real problem for the
LNT theory. The predicteddeaths and cancer cases haven’t materialized. In Britain, much hay was made by Greenpeace
and other organizations of the emergence of greater incidences of leukemia in children living near the nuclear-
reprocessing plant at Sellafield in the early 1990s. But such “cancer clusters” appear all over the place, and are just as
likely to appear next to an organic farm—to borrow the formulation of British environment writer Rob Johnston—as
next to a nuclear facility. There does not appear to be any greater incidence of leukemia in the children of those who
work in the nuclear industry. In fact, there is so little evidence of significant safety risks related to nuclear power that
the British government “continues to believe that new nuclear power stations would pose very small risks to safety,
security, health and proliferation,” according to a recent analysis it undertook. It also believes that “these risks are
minimized and sensibly managed by industry.”
58
NU 08-09 p. 59 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
A2 pr olif er ation
Proliferation is inevitable-an increase in energy plants wont impact
it
Murray, 6/16
National Review, Ian, senior fellow at the competitive enterprise institute, Nuclear power, yes please, EBSCO
As for the problem of nuclear proliferation, the unpleasant fact is that every country that has been willing to invest the
time and effort required to make a nuclear weapon has succeeded. The existence of nuclear power plants in Western
countries has nothing to do with this.
59
NU 08-09 p. 60 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
4.Counter-standards
A.Framers intent: the term alternative energy shouldn’t be
examined in a vacuum, the topic clearly is about alternatives to
fossil fuels, not alternatives to every fuel we might be using right
now.
B.No aff meets their definition: solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc are
all in significant usage already.
60
NU 08-09 p. 61 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
61
NU 08-09 p. 62 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
62
NU 08-09 p. 63 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
C.standards
1.Predictable limits: Topic Authors agree that nuclear is already a
significant source of energy in the US, meaning solvency advocates
view it as an expansion of an existing energy source, rather than an
alternative to current energy sources.
63
NU 08-09 p. 64 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
T- Alte rnativ e ca rd s
Nuclear power is not alternative energy-the term implies a source
not popularly used. Nuclear already supplies a large chunk of our
power.
Natural Resources defense council, no date
http://www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/a.asp
alternative energy - energy that is not popularly used and is usually environmentally sound, such as solar or wind
energy (as opposed to fossil fuels).
64
NU 08-09 p. 65 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
65
NU 08-09 p. 66 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
66
NU 08-09 p. 67 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
67
NU 08-09 p. 68 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
68
NU 08-09 p. 69 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
69
NU 08-09 p. 70 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
Wind, fuel cells, and solar will all solve emissions more effectively
than nuclear power
Lovins, 3
Amory, hydrogen economy: not so difficult—without nuclear power, submitted to nature, 23 August, 2003
http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E03-07_H2EconNotDiff.pdf
Global windpower could more than power the world. Its installed capacity rose in 2002 from 24 to 31 GW—twice what
global nuclear power’s global average annual increment in the 1990s. Investors shun nuclear power in favour of wind
and two even cheaper alternatives— ~90%-efficient gas-fired combined-heat-and-power at industrial or building scale,
and end-use efficiency—to be joined in time by fuel cells and even solar cells. Micropower’s extra order-ofmagnitude
economic value from “distributed benefits” makes its edge over any new central station unassailable9.
70
NU 08-09 p. 71 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
71
NU 08-09 p. 72 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1NC E co no my FL
1.Even a nuclear power Ramp-up will not be sufficient to avert the
economic disaster of climate change legislation
Spencer, 8
Jack, research fellow in nuclear energy at the Thomas A Roe institute for economy policy studies at the heritage foundation, Heritage
foundation, Nuclear power needed to minimize Lieberman-warner’s economic impact, 2008
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1944.cfm
While building enough nuclear power plants to minimize the economic impacts of CO2 caps may be desirable, the
reality is that the global industrial base could not support such a project in the U.S., much less the rest of the world.
Thus, the amount of nuclear power required to sustain the optimistic Lieberman–Warner economic projections is
impossible to achieve within the timeframes that they would require. This is especially true as the U.S. has yet to
resolve many issues that continue to face the nuclear industry. Using such optimistic nuclear projections to support an
analysis with minimal economic consequences of S. 3036 is therefore completely unrealistic.
72
NU 08-09 p. 73 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
1NC E co no my FL
3.Current legislation will not impact the US economy, its not strong
enough to cause much economic damage
AP 7
July 11th, Sen Bingaman says new climate bill wont hurt economy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289020,00.html
WASHINGTON — The nation can begin to address the risks of climate change while avoiding harm to the economy,
senators said Wednesday in unveiling anti-pollution legislation.
The bill would establish a mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, refineries and industrial
plants but allow companies to trade emission credits and avoid making emissions cuts if the costs become too high.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., one of the bill's chief sponsors, called it a "strong and balanced approach ... while
protecting the American economy." It also includes incentives aimed at spurring other nations such as China to address
climate change.
The bill is one of five that are being considered in the Senate to tackle global warming. It is expected to be the one most
closely embraced by industry, including companies that would be most affected.
Joining Bingaman at a news conference Wednesday to announce the legislation were executives of some of the
country's biggest coal-burning utilities and unions representing autoworkers and coal miners.
It's a "balanced and fair approach that recognizes that economic development and environmental progress can and
should go hand in hand," said Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO.
Among others at the news conference were chief executives of Duke Energy Co. and American Electric Power, two of
the biggest operators of coal-burning power plants that emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide annually.
The bill would establish carbon emission limits throughout industry to assure that the releases do not grow significantly
over the next two decades. Carbon emissions would have to be at 2006 levels in 2030, instead of growing at the rate of
more than 1 percent a year as is projected without emissions caps.
73
NU 08-09 p. 74 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
74
NU 08-09 p. 75 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
75
NU 08-09 p. 76 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
76
NU 08-09 p. 77 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
77
NU 08-09 p. 78 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
78
NU 08-09 p. 79 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
79
NU 08-09 p. 80 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
80
NU 08-09 p. 81 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
81
NU 08-09 p. 82 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
82
NU 08-09 p. 83 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
83
NU 08-09 p. 84 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
84
NU 08-09 p. 85 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
85
NU 08-09 p. 86 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
B.The Links:
1.An increase in the number of plants would exponentially increase
the risk of terror attacks.
Spiegel Online, 7
July 4th, ‘Nuclear renaissance increases terror risks’
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,492404,00.html
According to the report, a spread in the use of nuclear energy will not only lead to proliferation, it would also up the
risks of radioactive material falling into the wrong hands.
A huge increase in the amount of nuclear power stations would increase the number of potential targets for terrorist
attacks. A terrorist group could attack the transport of nuclear material, steal plutonium to build a crude nuclear weapon
or "dirty bomb," fly an aircraft into a power station or infiltrate a power plant to sabotage it from the inside. Increasing
the number of nuclear facilities also inevitably provides terrorists with a greater number of targets, the research group
argues. "Many believe that ... even a small risk of such an attack is not acceptable."
"The question is whether in the 21st century the security risks associated with civil nuclear power can be managed, or
not? Society has to decide whether or not the risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism in a world with many nuclear
power reactors is acceptable."
86
NU 08-09 p. 87 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
87
NU 08-09 p. 88 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
88
NU 08-09 p. 89 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
89
NU 08-09 p. 90 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
90
NU 08-09 p. 91 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
91
NU 08-09 p. 92 / 92
Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative
Po litic s links- Bu sh ba d
Nuclear power is popular with the public
Peterson, 4
Scott, spokesperson for the Nuclear energy institute, 9/24, Democracy Now, Is nuclear power the solution to global warming, 2004
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/24/is_nuclear_power_the_solution_to
SCOTT PETERSON: The American public’s perspective on nuclear energy has actually been supportive for many
years now, because they recognize the benefits that they get from nuclear energy, and they also recognize the safety of
our plants, particularly over the last decade. 64% of the U.S. Public believes that we should build more nuclear plants,
and we are now setting the stage in this country, working both with industry and government to begin building
advanced reactors that have even better safety features. They’re going to be more cost effective to build so the
consumer electricity rates are going to be lower. They’re also going to be built in a manner they’re takes advantage of
existing nuclear power plants so we’re building them at the same sites, and actually, using less land, and taking
advantage of the land and the transmission systems that we already have. So, we’re taking a number of steps to make
sure that we can meet consumer electricity demands as they continue to rise in the future. But meet them in a way that
also protects the environment, and recognizes that we need to make changes in how we look at our air quality and how
we combine the imperatives of having electricity and also protecting our environment. If you took the nuclear plants
that we have today out of the electricity-
92