Nuclear

Nuclear CP
1nc
The United States Federal Government should substantially
increase its investment in nuclear power.
Only nuclear solves, renewables will never replace increasing
fuel demands; top scientists conclude
-
This card is dope, legit scientists

with all the US subsidies renewables combined solve 2%
o most aff cards wont have concrete stats, theyll be big exaggerations
that dont take into context how much oil we already use
their cards dont assume rapidly increasing coal and oil use
Bryce 13 Bryce is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, he cites: James

Hansen, former Nasa scientist , Kerry Emanuel is professor of meteorology at MIT,
Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR), Kenneth Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the
Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology
(Article by Robert Bryce, National Review, Wind Turbines Are Climate-Change
Scarecrows, http://www.nationalreview.com/nro-energy/364885/wind-turbines-areclimate-change-scarecrows-robert-bryce, AZ)
*** That is, if the worlds policymakers and environmentalists are serious about
addressing climate change, then they must admit that renewable energy simply
cannot meet the worlds soaring demand for energy at prices that consumers can
afford. The letter, which was clearly aimed at anti-nuclear environmental groups
such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Natural Resources Defense Council,
was signed by James Hansen, a former NASA scientist; Kerry Emanuel of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Tom Wigley of the University of Adelaide in
Australia; and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution. The letter says that while
renewables like wind and solar and biomass are growing, those sources cannot
scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global
economy requires. It went on, saying that in the real world there is no
credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial
role for nuclear power. The four concluded their epistle by saying that if
environmental activists have real concern about risks from climate change, then
they should begin calling for the development and deployment of advanced
nuclear energy. Frances Beinecke of the NRDC offered a predictable response to
the letter, telling The Associated Press that nuclear is not a panacea. She added
that the better path is to clean up our power plants and invest in efficiency and
renewable energy. Ah yes, efficiency and renewables the two-legged stool upon
which the Green Left has been trying to balance its untenable energy policies for
decades. Never mind that even as energy efficiency has increased dramatically,
energy demand has been soaring. Global energy use has nearly doubled since
1982, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. As for non-hydro

renewable energy, despite decades of hefty subsidies and in some cases, mandates,
it now provides about 2 percent of the 250 million barrels of oil-equivalent energy
(from all sources) that is being consumed globally every day. The hard truth is that
renewable energy cannot even keep pace with soaring global energy demand, much
less replace significant quantities of hydrocarbons. Thats not an opinion. Its basic
math. Last year, all of the wind turbines on the planet provided about 2.4 million
barrels of oil equivalent per day to the global economy. That sounds like a lot until
you compare winds contribution with that of the worlds fastest-growing source of
energy: coal. In 2012, global coal use increased by about 2 million barrels of oil
equivalent per day. Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in coal usage, wed
have to nearly replicate the entire global fleet of wind turbines some 285,000
megawatts of capacity and wed have to do so every year. The same is true for
solar energy. Im bullish on solar. I have 3,200 watts of solar panels on the roof of
my home in Austin, Texas. (Yes, I got a big subsidy to install them.) The rapidly
declining cost of photovoltaic panels is encouraging. But last year, all of the worlds
solar installations contributed just 400,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to the
global economy. Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in coal usage, wed have to
install about five times the worlds existing solar capacity which totaled about
100,000 megawatts in 2012 and wed have to do so every year. Now lets look at
carbon dioxide emissions. In 2012, the American Wind Energy Association claims,
wind energy reduced U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 80 million tons. Again, that
sounds significant. But consider this: Last year, global emissions of that gas totaled
34.5 billion tons. Thus, the 60,000 megawatts of U.S. wind-generation capacity
reduced global carbon dioxide emissions by about two-tenths of 1 percent. To make
the point even clearer, lets look at the history of carbon dioxide emissions. Since
1982, global carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by an average of about
500 million tons per year. If we take the American Wind Energy Associations claim
that 60,000 megawatts of wind-energy capacity can reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by about 80 million tons per year, then simple math shows that if we
wanted to stop the growth in global carbon dioxide emissions by using wind energy
alone, we would have to install about 375,000 megawatts of new wind-energy
capacity every year. If we assume each turbine has a capacity of two megawatts,
that would mean installing 187,500 wind turbines every year, or nearly 500 every
day. How much land would all those wind turbines require? Again, the math is
straightforward. The power density of wind energy is 1 watt per square meter [PDF].
Therefore, merely halting the growth in carbon dioxide emissions with wind energy
would require covering a land area of about 375 billion square meters or 375,000
square kilometers an area the size of Germany and we would have to do so
every year. What would that mean on a daily basis? Using wind alone to stop the
growth in carbon dioxide emissions would require us to cover about 1,000 square
kilometers with wind turbines a land area about 17 times the size of Manhattan
Island and we would have to do so every day. Given the ongoing backlash against
the wind industry that is already underway here in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and
Australia, the silliness of such a proposal is obvious. The punch line here is equally
obvious: If we are going to agree that carbon dioxide is a problem, then we must
embrace the technologies that are most effective at reducing our production of that
gas. As Hansen, Wigley, and their colleagues point out, that means nuclear. And while
the climate scientists dont mention methane, we are also going to have to use lots of natural gas, as
thats the only other fuel that can supplant significant amounts of coal. Over the past few years, the
U.S. and other countries have been subsidizing the paving of vast areas of the countryside with 500foot-high bird- and bat-killing whirligigs that are nothing more than climate talismans. Wind turbines
are not going to stop changes in the earths climate. Instead, they are token gestures giant steel
scarecrows that are deceiving the public into thinking that we as a society are doing something to
avert the possibility of catastrophic climate change.
2nc
Solves warming
Nuclear solves warming, top scientists, Sec of Energy, and
French empirics agree
Biello 13 citing former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Jeffrey Sachs,
Director of Earth institute at Columbia University (David Biello, Dec 12, 2013,
Scientific American, How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-globalwarming/)
When the Atlantic Navigator docked in Baltimore harbor earlier this month, the
freighter carried the last remnants of some of the nuclear weapons that the Soviet
Union had brandished in the cold war. During the past 20 years more than 19,000
Russian warheads have been dismantled and processed to make fuel for U.S.
nuclear reactors. In fact, during that period more than half the uranium fuel that
powered the more than 100 reactors in the U.S. came from such reprocessed
nuclear weapons. In addition to reducing the risk of nuclear war, U.S. reactors have
also been staving off another global challenge: climate change. The low-carbon
electricity produced by such reactors provides 20 percent of the nation's power and,
by the estimates of climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, avoided
64 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also avoided spewing soot
and other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved some 1.8
million lives. And that's why Hansen, among others, such as former Secretary of
Energy Steven Chu, thinks that nuclear power is a key energy technology to fend off
catastrophic climate change. "We can't burn all these fossil fuels," Hansen told a
group of reporters on December 3, noting that as long as fossil fuels are the
cheapest energy source they will continue to be burned. "Coal is almost half the
[global] emissions. If you replace these power plants with modern, safe nuclear
reactors you could do a lot of [pollution reduction] quickly." Indeed, he has
evidence: the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in
France in the 1970s and 80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil
fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly
2 percent per year. The world needs to drop its global warming pollution by 6
percent annually to avoid "dangerous" climate change in the estimation of Hansen
and his co-authors in a recent paper in PLoS One. "On a global scale, it's hard to see
how we could conceivably accomplish this without nuclear," added economist and
co-author Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, where
Hansen works. The only problem: the world is not building so many nuclear
reactors.
And, nuclear power key to solving global warming

Becker et al. 08 (Ulrich, Bruno Coppi, Eric Cosman, Peter Demos, Arthur Kerman,Physics Professors at MIT, Richard Milner- Director of Lab For Nuclear Science, A
Perspective on the Future Energy Supply of the United States: The Urgent Need for
Increased Nuclear Power, MIT Faculty Newsletter, 11-12/08,
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/212/milner.html), Shapiro
Until the U.S. dependence on foreign oil is significantly reduced, there is every expectation that increasing amounts
of precious U.S. blood and treasure will have to be expended in widening conflicts in the cause of energy security. It
is widely accepted that the U.S. must find a way to wean itself from its addiction to oil . In
ground transportation, which is a major oil consumer, significant progress is being made with batteries and fuel
cells to replace gasoline with electricity, which can be generated in alternative ways. Strongly motivated by these
the development of new technologies to increase energy efficiency and to

reliable and affordable energy with minimal greenhouse gas emission to the
Earths atmosphere is a high priority in the U.S. and in many other countries. It is essential that these efforts
two considerations,
produce
be encouraged and enhanced. However, the probability of success and the timescale for realization of these
technologies is highly uncertain. The economic stability and national security of the United States over the coming
decades cannot be secured by assuming optimistically that these new technologies will succeed in time to avoid a
major discontinuity in the supply of oil and gas from foreign and potentially hostile sources. Further, it is not
acceptable, nor is it possible, that the U.S. continues to burn fossil fuels indefinitely at present levels, thereby
Nuclear Power is Carbon-free,

Technologically Feasible, Scalable, and Economical. The United States needs
immediately to develop on a large scale an energy source which does not produce
greenhouse gases, which is already known to be technologically feasible, and which is economical in view of
projected costs of energy in the future. That energy source is nuclear fission . Nuclear fission power
putting in clear jeopardy the planet on which we have evolved.
reactor technology was developed in the U.S. and has been utilized for electricity generation on a large scale across
the globe for half a century. For example, France produces about 70% of its electricity using nuclear power. In the
U.S. about 20% of the electricity used is produced using nuclear power. However, there are states where it is
The U.S. should

establish the goal to produce half of its electricity by means of nuclear power as soon as
feasible. This will have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions , avoiding the risk of
significantly larger, e.g., in Illinois about 50% of electricity is generated by nuclear power.
an energy gap in supply, and providing valuable time for new energy technologies to be developed. This goal
would fast track and increase the projected levels of nuclear power over the scenarios considered in several energy
studies, including the 2003 MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Power.
Only nuclear solves, renewables will never replace increasing

fuel demands; top scientists conclude
-
This card is dope, legit scientists

with all the US subsidies renewables combined solve 2%
o most aff cards wont have concrete stats, theyll be big exaggerations
that dont take into context how much oil we already use
their cards dont assume rapidly increasing coal and oil use
Bryce 13 Bryce is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, he cites: James

Hansen, former Nasa scientist , Kerry Emanuel is professor of meteorology at MIT,
Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR), Kenneth Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the
Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology
(Article by Robert Bryce, National Review, Wind Turbines Are Climate-Change
Scarecrows, http://www.nationalreview.com/nro-energy/364885/wind-turbines-areclimate-change-scarecrows-robert-bryce, AZ)
*** That is, if the worlds policymakers and environmentalists are serious about
addressing climate change, then they must admit that renewable energy simply
cannot meet the worlds soaring demand for energy at prices that consumers can
afford. The letter, which was clearly aimed at anti-nuclear environmental groups
such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Natural Resources Defense Council,
was signed by James Hansen, a former NASA scientist; Kerry Emanuel of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Tom Wigley of the University of Adelaide in
Australia; and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution. The letter says that while
renewables like wind and solar and biomass are growing, those sources cannot
scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global
economy requires. It went on, saying that in the real world there is no
credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial
role for nuclear power. The four concluded their epistle by saying that if
environmental activists have real concern about risks from climate change, then
they should begin calling for the development and deployment of advanced
nuclear energy. Frances Beinecke of the NRDC offered a predictable response to
the letter, telling The Associated Press that nuclear is not a panacea. She added
that the better path is to clean up our power plants and invest in efficiency and
renewable energy. Ah yes, efficiency and renewables the two-legged stool upon
which the Green Left has been trying to balance its untenable energy policies for
decades. Never mind that even as energy efficiency has increased dramatically,
energy demand has been soaring. Global energy use has nearly doubled since
1982, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. As for non-hydro
renewable energy, despite decades of hefty subsidies and in some cases, mandates,
it now provides about 2 percent of the 250 million barrels of oil-equivalent energy
(from all sources) that is being consumed globally every day. The hard truth is that
renewable energy cannot even keep pace with soaring global energy demand, much
less replace significant quantities of hydrocarbons. Thats not an opinion. Its basic
math. Last year, all of the wind turbines on the planet provided about 2.4 million
barrels of oil equivalent per day to the global economy. That sounds like a lot until
you compare winds contribution with that of the worlds fastest-growing source of
energy: coal. In 2012, global coal use increased by about 2 million barrels of oil
equivalent per day. Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in coal usage, wed
have to nearly replicate the entire global fleet of wind turbines some 285,000
megawatts of capacity and wed have to do so every year. The same is true for
solar energy. Im bullish on solar. I have 3,200 watts of solar panels on the roof of
my home in Austin, Texas. (Yes, I got a big subsidy to install them.) The rapidly
declining cost of photovoltaic panels is encouraging. But last year, all of the worlds
solar installations contributed just 400,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to the
global economy. Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in coal usage, wed have to
install about five times the worlds existing solar capacity which totaled about
100,000 megawatts in 2012 and wed have to do so every year. Now lets look at
carbon dioxide emissions. In 2012, the American Wind Energy Association claims,
wind energy reduced U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 80 million tons. Again, that
sounds significant. But consider this: Last year, global emissions of that gas totaled
34.5 billion tons. Thus, the 60,000 megawatts of U.S. wind-generation capacity
reduced global carbon dioxide emissions by about two-tenths of 1 percent. To make
the point even clearer, lets look at the history of carbon dioxide emissions. Since
1982, global carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by an average of about
500 million tons per year. If we take the American Wind Energy Associations claim
that 60,000 megawatts of wind-energy capacity can reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by about 80 million tons per year, then simple math shows that if we
wanted to stop the growth in global carbon dioxide emissions by using wind energy
alone, we would have to install about 375,000 megawatts of new wind-energy
capacity every year. If we assume each turbine has a capacity of two megawatts,
that would mean installing 187,500 wind turbines every year, or nearly 500 every
day. How much land would all those wind turbines require? Again, the math is
straightforward. The power density of wind energy is 1 watt per square meter [PDF].
Therefore, merely halting the growth in carbon dioxide emissions with wind energy
would require covering a land area of about 375 billion square meters or 375,000
square kilometers an area the size of Germany and we would have to do so
every year. What would that mean on a daily basis? Using wind alone to stop the
growth in carbon dioxide emissions would require us to cover about 1,000 square
kilometers with wind turbines a land area about 17 times the size of Manhattan
Island and we would have to do so every day. Given the ongoing backlash against
the wind industry that is already underway here in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and
Australia, the silliness of such a proposal is obvious. The punch line here is equally
obvious: If we are going to agree that carbon dioxide is a problem, then we must
embrace the technologies that are most effective at reducing our production of that
gas. As Hansen, Wigley, and their colleagues point out, that means nuclear. And while
the climate scientists dont mention methane, we are also going to have to use lots of natural gas, as
thats the only other fuel that can supplant significant amounts of coal. Over the past few years, the
U.S. and other countries have been subsidizing the paving of vast areas of the countryside with 500foot-high bird- and bat-killing whirligigs that are nothing more than climate talismans. Wind turbines
are not going to stop changes in the earths climate. Instead, they are token gestures giant steel
scarecrows that are deceiving the public into thinking that we as a society are doing something to
avert the possibility of catastrophic climate change.
And, extinction
Snow and Hannam 14
(Deborah and Peter- staff writers, Climate Change Could Make Humans
Extinct, Warns Health Expert, The Sydney Morning Herald, 3/31/14, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climatechange/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html), Shapiro
The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless

humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a
species, a leading Australian health academic has warned. Helen Berry, associate dean in the
faculty of health at the University of Canberra, said while the
Earth has been warmer and colder at different points in the
planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is
today. ''What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the
change since the 1970s, when we started burning a lot of fossil
fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match
this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of it, it will mean
our extinction eventually.'' Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to
the health chapter of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors
Tony McMichael, of the Australian National University, and Colin Butler,
of the University of Canberra, have outlined the health risks of
rapid global warming in a companion piece for The Conversation, also published on Monday. The three
warn that the adverse effects on population health and social
stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate
change. ''Human-driven climate change poses a great threat,
unprecedented in type and scale, to wellbeing, health and perhaps
even to human survival,'' they write. They predict that the greatest challenges will come from undernutrition and impaired child
development from reduced food yields; hospitalisations and deaths due to intense heatwaves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and the spread of
infectious diseases. They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social
development programs. Projecting to an
average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they
say ''people won't be able to cope, let alone work productively, in the hottest parts of the year''. They say that action on climate change would produce
''extremely large health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth. A leaked draft of the IPCC report notes that a
warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related deaths but the benefits would be ''greatly'' outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat
extremes. Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience temperatures four to seven degrees higher than pre-industrial times, the
report said. While some adaptive measures are possible, limits to humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity
in the warmest months by 40 per cent by 2100.
Transition to renewables
**Nuclear key for transition to renewables- it is unjustly
criticized
Melville 13 Published in Berkeley Scientific journal (Jonathan Melville, 2013,
Berkeley Scientific Journal, The Death and Decline of Nuclear Power,
http://bsj.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/eScholarship-UC-item07q8z16d.pdf)
Despite these caveats, nuclear power is certainly a viable source of energy for an
advancing world. Compared to traditional fossil fuels, it is clean, sustainable, and is
far less polluting on a day-to-day basis; compared to renewable energy sources, it is
more efficient and has a greater maximum energy potential in regions where
geothermal, wind, or hydroelectric energy is not geographically optimal. While
nuclear disasters are, to say the least, catastrophic, they are few and far between.
Ultimately, it is this constant fear of catastrophe that is responsible for
public mistrust of nuclear power. It is common knowledge that coal power
plants are filthy and polluting, but because their environmental and societal impact
is not immediate, they are exposed to far less public scrutiny. Nuclear powers
negative effects are not cumulative: they are short, sudden, violent, and easily
headlined by the media, lingering in the public consciousness for years. By learning
and adapting from past disasters, we can make nuclear power plants iteratively
safer. Of the three major nuclear power disasters that have defined the science -Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima -- only Chernobyl caused significant
amounts of casualties and had deep economic and environmental ramifications.
Three-Mile Island and Fukushima, by comparison, were nuclear containment success
stories, resulting in orders of magnitude less radiation released and hardly any
radiation casualties as a result. While all three were serious radiation breaches and
any loss of life is terrible, to continue to presuppose all nuclear power by a single
45-year-old worst-case-scenario is shortsighted. In the future, a movement away
from nonrenewable, polluting fossil fuels to clean, sustainable alternate energy
sources is inevitable; ignoring nuclear power as an important intermediary in
this transition only makes such a transition more difficult and less likely.
Nuclear power is the largest non-fossil-fuel source of energy in the US, producing
19% of total energy generated, while every form of renewable energy combined
comprises only 13% (US Energy Information Administration, 2012). An attempt to
phase out both nuclear energy and fossil fuels at the same time would take decades
at the least and could overload the US energy market with unrealistic wind, solar
and hydroelectric energy demands that vastly outstrip these sources capacities. To
push away from nuclear power now would only increase US dependence on
unsustainable sources of energy and increase the difficulty of tackling the energy
crisis. Nuclear power is history; it has been defined by its history ever since the first
atom bombs were dropped on Japan. It has been slowly dying for decades, wrongly
maligned for some implicit yet completely nonexistent association with nuclear
weaponry and preconceived notions based on a single historical worst-case
scenario. Rather than learn from the past and improve upon it, there has been a
push to abandon nuclear power entirely. While nuclear power is far from perfect, it is
a definite improvement upon polluting fossil fuels, and a powerful ally in the
transition away from them toward ultimately renewable sources like wind,
hydroelectric, and solar energy. While in some countries, like Germany and France,
the anti-nuclear movement has taken such a hold that its salvation is increasingly
unlikely, in the US there is still a glimmer of hope for future development and
research. For the first time since the Cold War, nuclear power plants are being
planned and constructed. Only time will tell if these reactors will pave the way for
the next generation or are merely the dying gasps of a doomed industry.
Inherency/ US KEY
US is key to model nuclear
CSIS 13 (Center for Strategic and International studies, June 2013, Csis.org,
Restoring U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Energy,
http://csis.org/files/publication/130614_RestoringUSLeadershipNuclearEnergy_WEB.p
df)
EXPANDED PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR COOPERATION

The United States is widely respected internationally for its strong independent
nuclear
regulation and its successful industry self-governance model. The result has been
demonstrated
by top performance in safety, security, operations, and emergency response, which
is recognized globally. The NRC is regularly engaged as the benchmark standard
setter for regulators in other countries. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
(INPO) is routinely approached for leadership and assistance in applying the same
principles that govern U.S. industry nuclear operations to other operators around
the globe. The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), modeled after INPO,
is evolving to influence safe operations globally. More recently, the International
Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) has evolved as an influential
forum, with 62 participating nations, and a 5-nation steering committee (United
States, United Kingdom, France, Japan, and China); it has been embraced by many
countries expanding or seeking to enter the realm of nuclear operations as a key
opportunity for gaining insight from the experiences of successful nuclear energy
nations. IFNEC, in particular, with continued DOE leadership, is an opportune body
for bringing forth and reinforcing the standards and principles for responsible and
safe nuclear energy operations worldwide. Through these entities and others, the
United States should broadly continue to leverage its regulatory and legal
framework and its reputation for excellence in all aspects of nuclear energy
development and operations to other nations, and especially to emerging nations
seeking to establish nuclear energy as a new domestic source of electricity.
UQ- Nuclear restricted now, especially by US

Epstein 11 Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights,
specializing in energy issues (Alex, July 23, 2011, Fox News, Nuclear Power Is
Extremely Safe -- That's the Truth About What We Learned From Japan,
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/23/nuclear-power-is-extremely-safe-thatstruth-about-what-learned-from-japan/)
In the midst of a still struggling and fragile global economy, Germany has
announced that it will shut down seven nuclear plants by the end of the year--which
means that Germans will be left to run their factories, heat their homes, and power
their economy with 10% less electrical generating capacity. Nine more plants will be
shut down over the next decade and tens of billions of dollars in investment will be
lost. The grounds for this move, and similar proposals in Switzerland, Italy, and
other countries, is safety. As the Swiss energy minister put it, Fukushima showed
that the risk of nuclear power is too high. In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite.
Hows that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not
true. Try zero. To think rationally about nuclear safety, you must identify the whole context. As the late,
great energy thinker Petr Beckmann argued three decades ago in his contrarian classic "The Health
Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," every means of generating power has dangers and risks, but nuclear
power is far safer than any other form of large-scale energy conversion yet invented. To date, there
have been devised only five practical means of producing large-scale, affordable, reliable energy: coal,
natural gas, oil, hydroelectric, and nuclear. (Although widely-hyped and frequently subsidized, solar
and wind power -- which generate energy from highly diffuse and intermittent sources -- have failed for
forty years to deliver.) Whether youre concerned about a dangerous accident or harmful emissions, a
nuclear power plant is the safest way to generate power. The key to nuclear powers safety, Beckmann
explains, is that it uses a radioactive energy source--such as uranium. In addition to having the
advantage of storing millions of times more energy per unit of volume than coal, gas, or water, the
radioactive material used in power plants literally cannot explode. Ridiculing the scare tactics that a
nuclear power plant poses the same dangers as a nuclear bomb, Beckmann observes: An explosive
nuclear chain reaction is no more feasible in the type of uranium used as power plant fuel than it is in
chewing gum or pickled cucumbers. The one danger of running a nuclear plant is a large release of
radiation. This is extremely unlikely, because nuclear plants contain numerous shielding and
containment mechanisms (universal in the civilized world but callously foregone by the Soviets in their
Chernobyl plant). But in the most adverse circumstances, as Fukushima illustrated, the cooling system
designed to moderate the uraniums heat can fail, the backups can fail, the radioactive material can
overheat to the point that the plant cannot handle the pressure, and a radiation release is necessary.
Yet, even then, it is extremely unlikely that the radiation levels will be high enough to cause radiation
sickness or cancer--and radiation in modest quantities is a normal, perfectly healthy feature of life
(your blood is radioactive, as is the sun). And even the worst nuclear accident gives neighbors a luxury
that broken dams and exploding refineries do not: time. While many, many things went wrong at
Fukushima, as might be expected in an unprecedented natural disaster, what is more remarkable is
that thanks to the fundamental integrity of the nuclear vessel and the containment building, none of
the power plants neighbors have died, nor have any apparently been exposed to harmful levels of
radiation. (The Japanese government has announced that eight of 2,400 workers have been exposed to
higher-than-allowed amounts of radiation, but these amounts are often hundreds of times less than is
necessary to do actual damage.) Now imagine if a 9.0 earthquake and 40 foot tsunami had hit a
hydroelectric dam; thousands of people could have died in the ensuing flood. Or what if they had hit a
natural gas plant or oil refinery or coal plant? These structures could have suffered explosions, such as
the type we saw on BPs Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, or just collapsed and
spewed debris and pollution throughout the area. The Fukushima nuclear plants, with their incredible
resilience, almost certainly saved many, many lives. Nuclear power also saves lives that would
otherwise be lost to pollution. A nuclear power plant has effectively zero harmful emissions. (It
generates a small amount of waste, which France, among other countries, has demonstrated can be
both re-used economically and stored safely.) By contrast, fossil fuel plants generate various forms of
particulate matter that strongly correlate with higher cancer rates. We should not knock coal,
Beckmann stressed, as fossil fuel plants are vital for human survival for decades to come, but we
should recognize that new nuclear power plants are far safer than the status quo. The perversity of
using nuclear powers demonstrated safety as a black mark against it is not new. Beckmanns book
came out in 1976--three years before the Three Mile Island disaster, which nuclear critics capitalized
on, even though it was, as Beckmann later wrote, historys only major disaster with a toll of zero
dead, zero injured, and zero diseased. Still, environmentalists shut down nuclear plants, oblivious to
the accidents they could have prevented. In just the three years leading up to Three Mile Island,
Beckmann observed, dam disasters have killed thousands of people (at least 2,000 in India in August
1979); many hundreds have died in explosions and fires of gas, oil, butane, gasoline, and other fuels . .
. As a consequence of the anti-nuclear hysteria in Beckmanns time, the U.S.

government made it either impossible or economically prohibitive to build
new plants, in the name of safety. Fukushima has affirmed that nuclear is the
safest form of power in existence. Any government that fails to recognize this is
endangering its citizens health.
UQ- Nuclear power faltering, more development vital to

preventing warming
McCormick 14, Citing the International Energy Agency (Rich, June 26 th, 2014,
The Verge, The world must build more nuclear power plants to halt climate change:
Or else IEA says temperature will rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius,
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/26/5844928/nuclear-power-plants-needed-to-stopclimate-change)
Nuclear power plants aren't being built fast enough for the world to hit important
carbon emissions targets, according to the International Energy Agency. A lack of
trust in nuclear technology, coupled with the global economic downturn that began
in 2008, has resulted in a slowdown of construction and a plateau of the world's
nuclear energy capacity. According to the "2DS" scenario presented by the
International Energy Agency, the world must halve its energy- and process-related
CO2 emissions from 2011 levels in order to ensure an 80 percent chance of limiting
the global average temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit.) In order to achieve that aim, 186 gigawatts of nuclear capacity must be
added between now and 2025. At current rates of nuclear plant construction, the
Earth's nuclear energy output will fall between 5 and 24 percent short of that target.
Worldwide attitudes toward nuclear power are mixed three years after the
Fukushima disaster. Japan and Germany reacted quickly against the technology,
shutting down their reactors and prompting public debates about nuclear energy's
safety, while China and Russia pressing ahead, planning ambitious nuclear power
plant construction projects. 72 nuclear power plants were under construction at the
end of 2013, but such facilities usually take between five and ten years to get up
and running, and need to be retired after 30 to 40 years of operation. Capacity is
sometimes replaced rather than increased. The United States retired four reactors in
2013, with another slated to be taken offline this fall the country only has five in
construction. Even with these projects underway, the IEA is projecting a shortfall in
nuclear power. Fukushima shows the energy generation method can be dangerous,
but the IEA warns that if nuclear capacity, which it says provides 18 percent of the
world's energy mix, isn't increased, a spike in global temperatures could be
even more damaging.
*Nuclear meets demand

Future energy demand expected to increase, only nuclear
solves
Beller and Rhodes 00, Denis Beller is a technical staff member at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory and works in the department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Nevada;
Richard Lee Rhodes is a Pulitzer Prizing winning American historian, journalist and
author of both fiction and non-fiction (Denis and Richard, The Need for Nuclear
Power: More energy, not less, http://www.nci.org/conf/rhodes/index.htm, AZ)
By every humane measure, the world needs more energy. Energy multiplies human
labor, increasing productivity. It builds and lights schools, purifies water, powers
farm machinery, drives sewing machines and robot assemblers, stores and moves
information. World population is increasing, passing six billion midway through
1999. Yet one third two billion people lack even electricity. Development
depends on energy supply, and the alternative to development is suffering poverty,
disease and premature death potentiating violence to force redistribution of
material wealth. Beyond altruism, considerations of national security require
developed nations to foster increasing energy production in their more populous
developing counterparts. For safety as well as security, to meet unanticipated
natural, ecological and technological challenges, that energy supply should come
from diverse sources. At a global level, the British Royal Society and Royal Academy
of Engineering estimate in a 1999 report, we can expect our consumption of energy
at least to double in the next 50 years and to grow by a factor of up to five in the
next 100 years as the world population increases and as people seek to improve
their standards of living. [Royal Society (1999), p. 3.] Even with vigorous
conservation, world energy production would have to triple by 2050 to support onethird todays U.S. use per capita.[Wolfe (1996), p. 1.] The International Energy
Agency (IEA) of the OECD projects 65 percent growth in world energy demand by
2020, two-thirds of that increase in developing countries, including China. But
embedded in these inevitabilities is a potential double bind. Given the levels of
consumption likely in future, the Royal organizations caution, it will be an immense
challenge to meet the global demand for energy without unsustainable longterm
damage to the environment. [Royal Society (1999), p. 3.] That damage includes air
pollution, carbon pollution linked to global warming, and surface pollution and
degradation from siting requirements and disposal of waste. In order of percentage
of supply, todays major world energy resources are petroleum (39.5%), coal
(24.2%), natural gas (22.1%), hydroelectric power (6.9%) and nuclear power (6.3%).
[EIA (1997).] Although petroleum and coal dominate, their market fraction began
declining decades ago. [Marchetti (1987).] Natural gas and nuclear power have
steadily increased their share. Contrary to the assertions of antinuclear
organizations, nuclear power is neither dead, dying nor in decline . In the
U.S. as well as globally, every category of its performance, safety and production
has improved significantly since 1990, including a record unit capacity factor (the
fraction of a power plants production capacity that is actually generated) for

operating reactors worldwide in 1998, reduced radiation exposure to workers and
reduced high-level and low-level waste per unit of energy. [Nuclear News Aug 99
and Nuclear Engineering International, Vol. 38, No. 2, June 1999, p. 22.] The average
U.S. capacity factor in 1998 was 80 percent for about 100 reactors, compared to 58
percent in 1980 and 66 percent in 1990. [1980 and 1990, DOE/EIA Nuclear Power
Plant Operations database; 1998, DOE data, net generation divided by capacity.]
France generates 79 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, Belgium 60
percent, Sweden 42 percent, Switzerland 39 percent, Spain 37 percent, Japan 34
percent, the UK 21 percent, the U.S. (the largest producer of nuclear energy in the
world) 19 percent. [Energy percentages: EIA (1997), p. 2; IAEA (1997), p. 12.]
Despite a reduction in the number of units, the U.S. nuclear industry generated nine
percent more nuclear electricity in 1999 than in 1998. [DOE/EIA Short Term Energy
Outlook, August 1999.] Average production costs for nuclear energy are 1.91 cents
per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while gas-fired electricity costs 3.38 cents per kWh. [NEI
(1998).] South Korea and the PRC have announced ambitious plans to expand their
nuclear power capabilities in the case of South Korea, by building sixteen new units,
increasing capacity by more than 100 percent. With 420 operating reactors
worldwide, nuclear power is alive and well and supplying a significant fraction of the
worlds energy needs. Because major, complex technologies require more than a
half century to diffuse into global society, and no other open-ended energy
technology approaches even one percent of world production, natural gas and
nuclear power will dominate the next hundred years, though which will command
the greater share remains to be determined. [Grubler, et al., (1999)] We believe this
development is salutary. Increasing world demand will intensify issues of energy
security, environmental protection and limiting global warming , and both sources of
primary energy are cleaner and more secure than the historic fuels they have begun
to replace. Environmentalists belatedly awakening from their infatuation
with renewables should welcome the transition.
AT: Nuclear hurts environment

radioactive waste doesnt affect environment
-
tiny volume and highly contained/ regulated, only a political problem (France,
Sweden prove its great)
coal smoke is way worse, the worst nuclear waste is fixable in long term
low loss of life, general radioactivity lower than TVs
The high-level waste is intensely radioactive, of course (the low-level waste can be
less radioactive than coal fly ash, which is used to make concrete and gypsum
incorporated into building materials), but its small volume and the significant fact
that it has not been released into the environment allow its meticulous
sequestration behind multiple barriers . Toxic wastes from coal, dispersed across the
landscape in coal smoke or buried near the surface, retain their toxicity forever.
Radioactive nuclear waste decays steadily, losing 99 percent of its toxicity after 600
years well within the range of human experience with custody and maintenance, as
evidenced by structures such as the Roman Pantheon and Notre Dame cathedral.
Nuclear waste disposal is a political problem in the United States because of
widespread nuclear fear disproportionate to the reality of relative risk, but it is not
an engineering problem, as advanced projects in France , Sweden and Japan
demonstrate. The World Health Organization has estimated that indoor and outdoor
air pollution causes some three million deaths per year. [IAEA (1997), pp. 22-23.]
Substituting small, sequestered volumes of nuclear waste for vast, dispersed
volumes of toxic wastes from fossil fuels would be an improvement in public health
so obvious that we are astonished that physicians throughout the world have not
demanded such a conversion. Nuclear electricity generated from existing U.S.
plants is fully competitive with electricity from fossil fuels, but new nuclear power is
somewhat more expensive. Large nuclear power plants require larger capital
investments than comparable coal or gas plants. They do so because nuclear
utilities are required to build and maintain costly systems to sequester their
radioactivity from the environment. If fossil fuel plants were similarly required to
sequester the pollutants they generate, they would cost significantly more than nuclear
power plants do. The European Union has calculated externality costs for complete energy
chains (mining, transportation, operation and disposal of waste). For equivalent amounts of
energy generation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) summarizes the EU
calculations, the coal and oil plants assessed, owing to their large emissions and huge fuel
and transport requirements, have the highest externality costs as well as equivalent lives
lost. The external costs are some ten times higher than for a nuclear power plant and can be
a significant fraction of generation costs. [IAEA (1997), p. 44.] Thus coal externalities,
properly accounted, cost 15 Ecu per kWh; oil, 12; gas, 0.6; nuclear, 0.4. In equivalent lives
lost per gigawatt generated annually (that is, loss of life expectancy from human exposure
to pollutants), coal kills 37; oil, 32; gas, 2; nuclear, 1. [IAEA (1997), table 4, p. 44.] Compared
to nuclear power, in other words, fossil fuels (and renewables) have enjoyed a free ride with
respect to protection of the environment and public health and safety.
Wont damage environment as much as other energy sources

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. Hows that? Well for starters, ask
yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero. To
think rationally about nuclear safety, you must identify the whole context. As the
late, great energy thinker Petr Beckmann argued three decades ago in his
contrarian classic "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," every means of
generating power has dangers and risks, but nuclear power is far safer than any
other form of large-scale energy conversion yet invented. To date, there have been
devised only five practical means of producing large-scale, affordable, reliable
energy: coal, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric, and nuclear. (Although widely-hyped
and frequently subsidized, solar and wind power -- which generate energy from
highly diffuse and intermittent sources -- have failed for forty years to deliver.)
Whether youre concerned about a dangerous accident or harmful emissions, a
nuclear power plant is the safest way to generate power. The key to nuclear powers
safety, Beckmann explains, is that it uses a radioactive energy source--such as
uranium. In addition to having the advantage of storing millions of times more
energy per unit of volume than coal, gas, or water, the radioactive material used in
power plants literally cannot explode. Ridiculing the scare tactics that a nuclear
power plant poses the same dangers as a nuclear bomb, Beckmann observes: An
explosive nuclear chain reaction is no more feasible in the type of uranium used as
power plant fuel than it is in chewing gum or pickled cucumbers. The one danger of
running a nuclear plant is a large release of radiation. This is extremely unlikely,
because nuclear plants contain numerous shielding and containment mechanisms
(universal in the civilized world but callously foregone by the Soviets in their
Chernobyl plant). But in the most adverse circumstances, as Fukushima illustrated,
the cooling system designed to moderate the uraniums heat can fail, the backups
can fail, the radioactive material can overheat to the point that the plant cannot
handle the pressure, and a radiation release is necessary. Yet, even then, it is
extremely unlikely that the radiation levels will be high enough to cause radiation
sickness or cancer--and radiation in modest quantities is a normal, perfectly healthy
feature of life (your blood is radioactive, as is the sun). And even the worst nuclear
accident gives neighbors a luxury that broken dams and exploding refineries do not:
time. While many, many things went wrong at Fukushima, as might be expected in
an unprecedented natural disaster, what is more remarkable is that thanks to the
fundamental integrity of the nuclear vessel and the containment building, none of
the power plants neighbors have died, nor have any apparently been exposed to
harmful levels of radiation. (The Japanese government has announced that eight of
2,400 workers have been exposed to higher-than-allowed amounts of radiation, but
these amounts are often hundreds of times less than is necessary to do actual
damage.) Now imagine if a 9.0 earthquake and 40 foot tsunami had hit a
hydroelectric dam; thousands of people could have died in the ensuing flood. Or
what if they had hit a natural gas plant or oil refinery or coal plant? These structures
could have suffered explosions, such as the type we saw on BPs Deepwater Horizon
platform in the Gulf of Mexico, or just collapsed and spewed debris and pollution
throughout the area. The Fukushima nuclear plants, with their incredible resilience,
almost certainly saved many, many lives.
AT: prolif/ terror

No prolif- wrong fuel types, and strict regulations
NEI 14 (Nuclear Energy Institute, January 2014, Preventing the Proliferation of
Nuclear Materials, http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/FactSheets/Preventing-The-Proliferation-Of-Nuclear-Materials)
Key Facts Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, their components and
the technology to produce nuclear materials is a global imperative that requires the
participation and cooperation of industry and nations. Low-enriched uranium
(LEU) is used as fuel in commercial nuclear energy facilities. It poses no
risk of proliferation, because it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.
High-enriched uranium (HEU), which is not used in commercial nuclear reactors, can
be used to make nuclear weapons. HEU is used in some research reactors. Used
nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, which contains plutonium generated as a
byproduct of the commercial fuel cycle, poses little risk of proliferation. All nuclear
material, including fresh and used nuclear fuel, is strictly managed and accounted
for at U.S. nuclear energy facilities as regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) pledge to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, work toward disarmament and promote the
commercial uses of nuclear energy. The NPT established a system of safeguards
under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Obama administrations
nonproliferation policy aligns with the NPT: a world without nuclear weapons
where nations have a right to pursue commercial nuclear energy under IAEA
supervision. Securing Nuclear Materials To combat the threat of proliferation, the
international nuclear energy community has adopted robust controls to ensure that
it can secure and fully account for nuclear materials manufactured for the
production of electricity and their byproducts. The industry does so through the
entire fuel cyclefrom the mining of uranium to the safe and secure storage of used
nuclear fuel. Controls include global monitoring by international inspectors and
stringent national inspection programs. The principal materials of concern in the
nuclear weapons production cycle include high-enriched uranium and plutonium.
Before its use in reactors, mined uranium must be enriched to concentrate the
uranium-235 isotope necessary for power production. This process creates the fuel
used in commercial nuclear reactors, low- enriched uranium. LEU is considered to be
uranium enriched to less than 20 percent U-235. Uranium used in commercial
nuclear reactors contains less than 5 percent U-235. It is impossible to create a
nuclear weapon from LEU with the concentration of U-235 so low. Commercial
reactors, once in operation, create plutonium as a byproduct of electricity
generation. Extracting the plutonium in used fuel rods entails complex chemical
reprocessing and requires highly sophisticated equipment. The U.S. nuclear industry
does not reprocess used fuel, although a few other nations do. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an international agreement aimed at
preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting cooperation in the commercial
uses of nuclear energy and disarmament. Created in 1968 and signed by 189 nations, it
permits ownership of nuclear weapons only by the five countries that possessed them at the
treatys inception: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. These
five countries pledged not to transfer nuclear weapons technology to other states and to
reduce their weapons stockpiles. IAEA inspectors work to ensure that commercial nuclear
materials and technologies are not used for military purposes. Acting under the treaty,
the IAEA regularly inspects more than 350 civilian nuclear facilities. Under the
Additional Protocol, adopted by the IAEA in 1997, the agency was granted expanded
rights of access to information and sites. Nuclear Fuel Supply Banks Strictly
monitored nuclear fuel banks enhance nonproliferation goals by ensuring a supply
of enriched uranium if a disruption in the supply chain occurs. The fuel banks are
designed to persuade other nations to forego development of uranium enrichment or
reprocessing technology, which could be used to make weapons grade material. The IAEA
Board of Governors has approved the creation of two separate fuel banks. The first was
established in March 2010 between the IAEA and the Russian government. The second fuel
bank was approved in December 2010 and will be owned and operated by the IAEA. Both
LEU reserves were established to protect member states from possible supply disruptions
unrelated to technical or commercial considerations. The U.S. Assured Fuel Supply In August
2011, the U.S. Department of Energy established an independent reserve supply of LEU, the
Assured Fuel Supply, available to both domestic and international reactor facilities in case of
commercial supply disruptions. This reserve supply of LEU was created from U.S. surplus
weapons-grade HEU. Other Programs and Initiatives The National Nuclear Security
Administration NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that is
responsible for detecting, preventing and reversing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is an NNSA program that seeks to reduce
and secure nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites worldwide. Nuclear
Suppliers Group The 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group establishes guidelines for
international nuclear trade. In 2011, the NSG voted to adopt guidelines that set clear
and specific criteria for the transfer of equipment and technology used in uranium
enrichment and used nuclear fuel reprocessing.
(AT: Terrorism)Power plants are impregnable

WNA14 (World Nuclear Association, April, Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors,
world-nuclear.org , http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-ofPlants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/)
Since the World Trade Centre attacks in New York in 2001 there has been increased
concern about the consequences of a large aircraft being used to attack a nuclear
facility with the purpose of releasing radioactive materials. Various studies have
looked at similar attacks on nuclear power plants. They show that nuclear
reactors would be more resistant to such attacks than virtually any other
civil installations see Appendix 3. A thorough study was undertaken by the US
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) using specialist consultants and paid for by
the US Dept. of Energy. It concludes that US reactor structures "are robust and
(would) protect the fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft".
Completely safe, no terrorism

UCSB no date (University of California, Santa Barbara, Science Line,
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1361)
Nuclear energy is produced in nuclear power plants, where the radioactive reactions
that produce energy are highly controlled and contained. As long as these controlled
environments are functioning properly, and the waste of the reactions is properly
contained, nuclear energy is not harmful. In fact, many people say that nuclear
energy is much more environmentally friendly than the alternative (and more widely
used) fossil-fuel routes of energy production, because the controlled nuclear
reactions produce much less harmful gases than reactions of fossil fuels. However,
this topic is highly debated and controversial. Some people think that nuclear
energy is a bad idea because of the RISK for it to be harmful: if the special
contained reaction environments malfunction, or if the nuclear waste cannot be
contained forever, then there does exist potential for environmental damage.
People who support the use of nuclear energy say that the risks are small and that
this form of energy is becoming safer with newly developing technologies.
No link to prolif: Nuclear reactors help reduce nuclear weapons

Biello 13 citing former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Jeffrey Sachs, Director
of Earth institute at Columbia University (David Biello, Dec 12, 2013, Scientific
American, How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming,
nuclear weapons.
No nukes can be made from power plants

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. Hows that? Well for starters, ask
yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero. To
think rationally about nuclear safety, you must identify the whole context. As the
late, great energy thinker Petr Beckmann argued three decades ago in his
contrarian classic "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," every means of
generating power has dangers and risks, but nuclear power is far safer than any
other form of large-scale energy conversion yet invented. To date, there have been
devised only five practical means of producing large-scale, affordable, reliable
energy: coal, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric, and nuclear. (Although widely-hyped
and frequently subsidized, solar and wind power -- which generate energy from
highly diffuse and intermittent sources -- have failed for forty years to deliver.)
Whether youre concerned about a dangerous accident or harmful emissions, a
nuclear power plant is the safest way to generate power. The key to nuclear powers
safety, Beckmann explains, is that it uses a radioactive energy source--such as
uranium. In addition to having the advantage of storing millions of times more
energy per unit of volume than coal, gas, or water, the radioactive material used
in power plants literally cannot explode. Ridiculing the scare tactics that a
nuclear power plant poses the same dangers as a nuclear bomb, Beckmann
observes: An explosive nuclear chain reaction is no more feasible in the type of
uranium used as power plant fuel than it is in chewing gum or pickled cucumbers.
The one danger of running a nuclear plant is a large release of radiation. This is
extremely unlikely, because nuclear plants contain numerous shielding and
containment mechanisms (universal in the civilized world but callously foregone by
the Soviets in their Chernobyl plant). But in the most adverse circumstances, as
Fukushima illustrated, the cooling system designed to moderate the uraniums heat
can fail, the backups can fail, the radioactive material can overheat to the point that
the plant cannot handle the pressure, and a radiation release is necessary. Yet, even
then, it is extremely unlikely that the radiation levels will be high enough to cause
radiation sickness or cancer--and radiation in modest quantities is a normal,
perfectly healthy feature of life (your blood is radioactive, as is the sun). And even
the worst nuclear accident gives neighbors a luxury that broken dams and
exploding refineries do not: time. While many, many things went wrong at
Fukushima, as might be expected in an unprecedented natural disaster, what is
more remarkable is that thanks to the fundamental integrity of the nuclear vessel
and the containment building, none of the power plants neighbors have died, nor
have any apparently been exposed to harmful levels of radiation. (The Japanese
government has announced that eight of 2,400 workers have been exposed to
higher-than-allowed amounts of radiation, but these amounts are often hundreds of
times less than is necessary to do actual damage.) Now imagine if a 9.0 earthquake
and 40 foot tsunami had hit a hydroelectric dam; thousands of people could have
died in the ensuing flood. Or what if they had hit a natural gas plant or oil refinery or
coal plant? These structures could have suffered explosions, such as the type we
saw on BPs Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, or just collapsed and
spewed debris and pollution throughout the area. The Fukushima nuclear plants,
with their incredible resilience, almost certainly saved many, many lives.
Nuclear not unique to prolif, countries wouldnt risk political

risk, nuclear energy reduces explosivity of uranium (had
trouble tagging this)
-
plutonium beyond capacity of terrorists

no way that country would lose the plutonium political fallout
plan decreases prolif, extracting nuclear energy prevents it from being
explosiv
Although power-reactor plutonium can theoretically be used to make nuclear

explosives, spent fuel is refractory and highly radioactive, beyond the capacity of
terrorists to process; weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be hot,
unstable and of uncertain yield. No nation has chosen to follow this route to build a
nuclear arsenal, nor is any likely to do so. Commercially viable [nuclear power]
plants are large and visible, comments former U.S. Undersecretary of Energy A.
David Rossin. Their customers visit them. International inspectors verify their
safeguards. It would be a treaty violation and a national disaster if any
attempt were made to divert commercially separated plutonium. It would
really be a huge risk, even for a desperate nation, to be caught in a diversion
attempt before it could build a credible nuclear arsenal . [Rossin (n.d.), p. 13.] The
risk of proliferation, the IAEA has concluded, is not zero and would not
become zero even if nuclear power ceased to exist. It is a continually
strengthened nonproliferation regime that will remain the cornerstone of efforts to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.[IAEA (1997), p. 30.] Ironically, burying
spent fuel without extracting its plutonium through reprocessing would actually
increase the longterm risk of nuclear proliferation, since the intensely radioactive
fission products that serve as a barrier to diversion (the spent fuel standard) decay
significantly in a century or less, and the decay of the less fissile and more
radioactive isotopes in spent fuel after one to three centuries improves the nuclear
explosive properties of the Pu the spent fuel contains. Besides extending the worlds
uranium resources almost indefinitely, a closed nuclear fuel cycle makes it possible
to convert plutonium to useful energy while breaking it down into more short-lived,
nonfissionable nuclear waste.
No terrorism
(OR)
AT: Cancer
(AT: Cancer)Nuclear power has less emissions, and produces
less cancer than fossil fuels
Nuclear power also saves lives that would otherwise be lost to pollution. A nuclear
power plant has effectively zero harmful emissions. (It generates a small amount
of waste, which France, among other countries, has demonstrated can be both reused economically and stored safely.) By contrast, fossil fuel plants generate various
forms of particulate matter that strongly correlate with higher cancer rates. We
should not knock coal, Beckmann stressed, as fossil fuel plants are vital for
human survival for decades to come, but we should recognize that new nuclear
power plants are far safer than the status quo. The perversity of using nuclear
powers demonstrated safety as a black mark against it is not new. Beckmanns
book came out in 1976--three years before the Three Mile Island disaster, which
nuclear critics capitalized on, even though it was, as Beckmann later wrote,
historys only major disaster with a toll of zero dead, zero injured, and zero
diseased. Still, environmentalists shut down nuclear plants, oblivious to the
accidents they could have prevented. In just the three years leading up to Three
Mile Island, Beckmann observed, dam disasters have killed thousands of people (at
least 2,000 in India in August 1979); many hundreds have died in explosions and
fires of gas, oil, butane, gasoline, and other fuels . . .
Turn: nuclear power decreases cancer

Even one annual equivalent life lost to nuclear power externalities is questionable,
however. Such an estimate of loss of life expectancy depends on whether or not
exposure to amounts of radiation considerably less than the natural radiation
background less even than the normal variations in background encountered during
airline travel or living at different altitudes increases the risk of cancer. Despite the
longstanding linear no-threshold theory (LNT) that dictates elaborate and expensive
confinement regimes for nuclear power operations and waste disposal, there is no
evidence that low-level radiation exposure increases cancer risk and good evidence
that it does not. There is even good evidence that exposure to low doses of
radioactivity improves health and lengthens life, probably by stimulating the
immune system much as vaccines do (the best study, of background radon levels in
hundreds of thousands of homes in more than 90 percent of U.S. counties, found
lung cancer rates decreasing significantly with increasing radon levels among both
smokers and nonsmokers). [Cohen (1998b).] Based on this evidence, low-level
radioactivity from nuclear power generation presents at worst a negligible risk.
Authorities on coal geology and engineering make the same argument about lowlevel radioactivity from coal burning; a U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, for
example, concludes that radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be
sources of alarm. [USGS (1997), p. 4.] But nuclear power development has been
hobbled, and nuclear waste disposal unnecessarily delayed, by LNT-derived
radioactivity limits not visited upon the coal industry.
AT Fukushima (environmental disaster)

Reactors are much safer now- even the weakest plants wont
be hurt by natural disasters
Biello 12 citing Scott Burnell of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (March 9,
2012, David, Scientific American, How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons
from Fukushima, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-are-oldnuclear-reactors-lessons-from-fukushima/)
But the disaster was no surprise given the type of reactors at Fukushima. In fact,
nuclear power experts, computer models and other analyses have consistently
shown for decades that a problem in the older boiling-water reactors employed at
Fukushima Daiichi would become disastrous because of a flawed safety system that
houses the nuclear fuel, known as the Mark I containment. It is "the worst one of all
the containments we have"and in a complete blackout, "you're going to lose
containment," noted U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Deputy Regional
Administrator Charles Casto on March 16, 2011, who was in Japan to assist,
according to transcripts of internal meetings released by the NRC. " There's no doubt
about it." The U.S. has 23 reactors with the same kind of safety systemsand the same risky
placement of pools for spent nuclear fuel, namely, alongside the main reactor in the top of the reactor
building. Would U.S. reactors perform any better than Japan's in a crisis? And what lessons does
Fukushima hold for reactor safety worldwide? Off the Mark The Mark I containment is a doughnutshaped structure beneath the reactor itself that is partially filled with water. In the event of a
breakdown of pumps that supply the reactor with fresh cooling water, the torus design is supposed to
provide additional cooling. Steam created by the still fissioning fuel floods into the torus and is cooled
by the supplemental water there. That additional cooling would limit the pressure created by any
steam buildup, theoretically allowing the reactor's designers to employ less strength in other parts of
the safety system. Unfortunately, any additional cooling provided by the torus did not last as long as
the loss of electricity at Fukushima. As a result, the nuclear rods heated their zirconium cladding along
with the remaining water to steam. At high heat, the cladding interacts with the surrounding water
vapor, binding tightly to the oxygen and freeing the hydrogen, which escapes as a gas. If allowed to
accumulate, the hydrogen can burn with an invisible flame as it did at Three Mile Island (which had a
different containment system) or, as appears to be the case at Fukushima, explode. As much as 1,000
kilograms of hydrogen may have been generated at the complex this way, according to the Japan's
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. In fact, the nuclear fuel in Unit 3 produced enough hydrogen to
cause the explosion in Unit 4 next door via a shared exhaust stack. To minimize the chances of such
hydrogen accumulation, the NRC has suggested U.S. reactors strengthen vents to ensure that they
could be used to relieve such a dangerous buildup of pressure. After all, the accretion of hydrogen
could also raise pressures above the design limits of the safety systems. Fukushima Daiichi actually
had such hardened vents, which either failed to operate or were not used soon enough to prevent the
explosions. One problem may have been that the vents require electricity to operateand at that point
the stricken nuclear power plant had none. "The NRC is implementing a [recommendation]
to enhance the vents by making them 'reliable' under adverse conditions," such as
a loss of electricity, says NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. And the agency concludes
that such voluntary improvements provide "appropriate protection" of public health
and safety. Beyond that, new rules are expected to address any lessons learned
from the Fukushima nuclear crisis. Regardless of the ability of the vents to function
appropriately, one clear difference exists between the operation of such boilingwater reactors in the U.S. versus those in Japanin the U.S., reactor operators have
the authority to vent radioactive steam or hydrogen gas as conditions warrant. The
employees of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which ran Fukushima Daiichi, appear to have
required or at least sought government authorization to do so. "They were concerned venting might
allow a flow of radioactive materials into the air, and they had not yet fully evacuated the area,"
explains mechanical engineer Vijay Nilekani of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry group. By
the time evacuations and authorizations had taken place, "they had damaged the core and were
venting hydrogen that caused explosions," Nilekani explains. "If you don't damage your core, you do
not produce the large amounts of hydrogen that resulted in detonation." In addition, it remains unclear
how the hydrogen got from the sealed area containing the reactor vessel into the surrounding building
and then built up in sufficient quantities to explode. One suggestion is that the enormous pressures
generated by the boiling steam opened gaps around bolts that allowed the hydrogen to escape or that
the vents themselves leaked. Such problems have long been an issue with the Mark I, the "safety
disadvantages" of which were highlighted in an internal memo at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
the precursor to the NRCas far back as 1972. The NRC nonetheless permits its use because "the
Mark I can survive long enough to allow for actions that keep the public safe in the event of a
radioactive release," Burnell says. In other words, there would be time to evacuate or take other safety
precautions. Modeling the worst To make that judgment, the NRC relies on computer modeling, the
most recent of which is known as State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses. That modeling took
two representative nuclear power plants in the U.S.a pressurized-water reactor from the Surry Power
Station in Virginia and a boiling-water reactor from Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania
and attempted to assess what would happen in a severe accident, such as the loss of all electric
power as a result of an earthquake, among other scenarios. The Peach Bottom reactors are broadly
similar to those in use at Fukushima. In fact, they are similar enough that the NRC even turned to this
analysis to try to predict what might happen at the latter's during that accident. Much as what
unfolded during the crisis in Japan, the computer modeling suggested that fuel in one of the two
reactors on the Peach Bottom site would begin to melt as soon as nine hours after a loss of cooling
water flow. Peach Bottom's Mark I containment would then fail roughly 20 hours after the earthquake if
there was no restoration of cooling water. The breached reactor would then spew "16 percent of the
core inventory""inventory" meaning cesium 137, along with 68 other radioactive isotopes in the hot
nuclear fuel. The consequences of the release, the analysis concluded, "could be serious." But the
computer modeling only analyzed catastrophic failure at one reactor at each of these nuclear power
plants, despite the fact that Peach Bottom and Surry each have two reactors on site. Multiple reactors
might be expected to be similarly troubled by shared challenges, as seen during the Fukushima crisis.
Nor did the modeling analyze what would happen if a powerful earthquake immediately destroyed
safety equipment or ripped a hole in the structure containing the reactor itself. The key weakness
revealed by both the Fukushima plant and in the U.S. computer models is the reliability of backup
electricity. The reactors at Fukushima had batteries big enough to power equipment, including
monitoring instruments, for eight hours. U.S. reactors are required only to have two hours of such
battery backup. "The NRC is currently revising the station blackout rule, and this effort could lead to
change in battery coping times," the NRC's Burnell says. "The models show that when you have a
station blackout where you still have batteries, there are steps that can be taken to go beyond what is
considered the normal life of batteries." Engineers could extend battery life by recharging them and/or
by shutting down all nonessential systems, for example. Staying flexible **The U.S. nuclear
industry, for its part, is suggesting that it will voluntarily implement an approach it
calls FLEX, which is meant to be a "diverse and flexible coping capability." Nuclear
power plant operators would purchase and store portable equipment that could be
used to provide additional means of cooling the reactor, a plan that could be in
place as soon as 2015. "FLEX would provide multiple means of obtaining power and
water needed to fulfill the key safety functions of core cooling, containment
integrity and spent-fuel pool cooling that would preclude damage to nuclear fuel,"
explains Adrian Heymer, executive director of Fukushima regulatory response at
NEI. That equipment list might include extra pumps, portable diesel generators for
recharging batteries, additional battery packs and hoses as well as fuel and dieselpowered air compressors, among other things. They would keep the plant running
for 72 hours. The similar work done to improve safety in the wake of the terrorist
attacks in September 2001 "gives us a 10-year head start on dealing with
unexpected events," argues NEI president Marvin Fertel, and FLEX builds on that
approach. Plus, new pressurized-water reactor designs currently under construction
in Georgia, known as the AP-1000, incorporate so-called passive safety features,
including enough water to cool a reactor for three days in the absence of any
human action. "If this design had been used in Fukushima, we would not
have a news story," argues nuclear engineer Aris Candris, CEO of Westinghouse,
the company responsible for the new design. "The AP-1000 is immune to the loss of
off-site power." But even at a reactor that does not fare as well in a large
earthquake and is not immune to the loss of off-site power, there is "essentially
zero risk of early fatalities," according to the NRC worst-case modeling. Even
when a release of radioactive material reaches the environment, "it's small enough
and takes so long to reach the community that people have already been evacuated
or otherwise protected," NRC's Burnell argues. "The public avoids any short-term
dose large enough to kill." And that is exactly what happened at Fukushima.
AT: Chernobyl
Industrial accident the Chernobyl disaster in particular is another kind of risk which
has generated disproportionate public concern. The Chernobyl explosion followed
from a fundamentally faulty reactor design which could not have been licensed in
the West. Locally it caused a human and environmental disaster, including 31
deaths, most from severe radiation exposure. Thyroid cancer, which could have
been prevented with prompt iodine prophylaxis, has increased in Ukrainian children
exposed to fallout. More than eight hundred cases have occurred, and several
thousand are projected; although the disease is treatable, three children have died.
LNT calculations (if credited) project 3,420 excess longterm cancer deaths in
Chernobyl area residents and cleanup crews. [IAEA (1997), Table 1, p. 25.] No
technological system is immune from accident, but these numbers for the worst
possible nuclear power accident are remarkably low compared to major accidents in
other industries. Recent dam failures in Italy and India each resulted in several
thousand fatalities. Coal mine accidents, oil and gas industry fires and pipeline
explosions typically kill hundreds per incident. The 1984 Bhopal chemical plant
disaster caused some three thousand prompt deaths and severely damaged the
health of several hundred thousand people. According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, between 1987 and 1996 there were more than 600,000
accidental releases of toxic chemicals in the U.S. that killed a total of 2,565 people
and caused 22,949 injuries. [Cited in Grossman (1999).] The Chernobyl reactor
lacked a containment structure, a fundamental safety system that is required on
Western reactors. Post-accident calculations indicate that such a structure would
have confined the explosion and thus the radioactivity, in which case no injuries or
deaths would have occurred. [Cohen (1998)] More than forty years of commercial
nuclear power operations demonstrate that nuclear power is much safer than fossil
fuel systems in terms of industrial accidents, environmental damage, health effects
and longterm risk.
**AT: Plan solves better

Nuclear way better than NatGas- no emissions and a million
times more efficient
-
a million times more efficient,

no toxic gases (NG is 200,000) and low radioactivity
Natural gas has many virtues as a fuel compared to coal or oil, and its increasing
share of world primary energy across the first half of the 21st century is assured.
But its supply is limited and unevenly distributed; it is expensive as a power source
compared to coal or uranium; it has higher value as a feedstock for materials and as
a substitute for petroleum in transportation, particularly for fuel cells; and it pollutes
the air. Natural gas fires and explosions are significant risks and an uncounted
externality. A single mile of gas pipeline three feet in diameter at 1,000 psi pressure
contains the equivalent of two-thirds of a kiloton of explosive energy; a million miles
of such large pipelines lace the earth. A 1,000 MWe natural gas plant releases 5.5
tonnes per day of sulfur oxides, 21 tonnes per day of nitrogen oxides, 1.6 tonnes
per day of carbon monoxide and 0.9 tonnes per day of particulates. U.S. annual
discharges in 1994 generating energy from natural gas totaled about 5.5 billion
tonnes. [Lehman (1996), p. 32.] The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability
to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. Nuclear fission,
transforming matter directly into energy, is several million times as energetic
as chemical burning, which merely breaks chemical bonds. One tonne of nuclear
fuel produces energy equivalent to two to three million tonnes of fossil fuel. [Suzuki
(1993), cited in Lehman (1996), p. 138.] Burning 1 kilogram of firewood can
generate 1 kilowatt hour of electricity; 1 kg of coal, 3 kWh; 1 kg of oil, 4 kWh. But 1
kg of uranium fuel in a modern lightwater reactor generates 400,000 kWh of
electricity, and if that uranium is recycled for maximum burnup, 1 kg can generate
more than 7,000,000 kWh. These spectacular differences in volume of fuel per unit
of energy produced largely determine the differing environmental impacts of
nuclear versus fossil fuels from mining or extraction, through transportation, to
environmental releases and the disposal of waste. Generating 1,000 MW of
electricity for a year requires 2,000 train cars of coal or 10 supertankers of oil, but
only one 10 cubic-meter fuel assembly of uranium. [IAEA (1997), P. 32.] Out the
other end of such fossil fuel plants even with abatement systems operating come
thousands of tonnes of noxious gases, particulates and heavy-metal-bearing (and
radioactive) ash plus solid hazardous waste: up to 500,000 tonnes of sulfur if coal,
more than 300,000 tonnes if oil and 200,000 tonnes if natural gas. In contrast, a
1,000 MWe nuclear plant releases annually no noxious gases or other pollutants, [5]
and trace radioactivity many times less per person than airline travel, a home
smoke detector or a television set. It produces about 30 tonnes of high-level waste
(spent fuel) and 800 tonnes of low- and intermediate-level waste about 20 cubic
meters in all when compacted (roughly, the volume of two passenger cars). [6]
[IAEA (1997), pp. 32-34.]
Nukes > Renewables

-
unpractical
less emissions
tons already spent on renewables
The vision of a world run on pristine energy generated from renewables which, like
controlled thermonuclear fusion, recede as practical sources despite expensively
subsidized R&D always twenty years down the road has romanticized a far less
realistic technological exuberance among environmental activists than that of which
they have long accused advocates of nuclear power. Along the way, the public
investment in renewables might have been spent making coal plants and
automobiles cleaner. The 1997 U.S. Federal R&D investment per thousand kilowatthours, for example, was only $0.05 for nuclear and coal, $0.58 for oil, $0.41 for gas
but $4,769 for wind and $17,006 for photovoltaics. [EIA, cited in NEI (1999), p. 15.]
While nuclear power avoided millions of tons of air pollutants and greenhouse
gases, The $5.8 billion spent by the [U.S.] Department of Energy on wind and solar
subsidies over the last 20 years is the financial equivalent of replacing between
5,000 and 10,000 MW of the nations dirtiest coal capacity with gas-fired combinedcycle units, which would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions between one-third
and two-thirds, Robert L. Bradley, Jr., of Houstons Institute for Energy Research
estimates. [Bradley (1997), p. 67, n. 305.] Replacing coal with nuclear generation
would have reduced overall emissions even more . Conservation has also been
heavily subsidized, making saved power twice as expensive in the U.S. as generated
power. [Bradley (1997), citing the EIA.] Overall, by Bradleys estimate, U.S.
conservation efforts and nonhydro renewables have benefitted from a cumulative

twenty-year taxpayer investment of some $30-$40 billion, the largest governmental
peacetime energy expenditure in U.S. history. [Bradley (1997), p. 4.]
HYDRO, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, biomass stink
tons of investments already, plan non-U

low energy
WEI predicts it wont replace over 7%
The Decline and Fall of the Renewables Renewable sources of energy hydroelectric
[4] , solar, wind, geothermal and biomass have high capital investment
requirements and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental
consequences. For most renewables, the energy they collect is extremely dilute,
requiring large areas of land and masses of collectors to concentrate. Manufacturing
solar collectors, pouring concrete for fields of windmills, drowning square miles of
land behind dams damages and pollutes. Photovoltaic cells are large semiconductors; their
processing produces a highly toxic waste stream of metals and solvents that requires special disposal
technology. A 1,000 MWe solar electric plant using photovoltaics would generate 6,850 tonnes of
hazardous waste over a thirty-year lifetime from metals finishing alone. A comparable solar thermal
plant (mirrors focussed on a central tower) would require primary metals that would generate 435,000
tonnes of manufacturing waste, of which 16,300 tonnes would be contaminated with lead and
chromium and considered hazardous. [Lehman (1996), pp. 53-54.] Decentralized solar systems of
comparable capacity would use an equivalent volume of materials, but decentralization is hardly
feasible for the megapolises of today and tomorrow. A global solar energy system would consume at
least 20 percent of identified world iron resources. It would require a century to build and a substantial
fraction of annual world iron production to maintain. The energy necessary to manufacture sufficient
solar collectors to cover a half-million square miles of the earths surface and to deliver the electricity
through long-distance transmission systems would itself add grievously to the global burden of
pollution and greenhouse gas. [Cf. Weingart (1978).] A global solar energy system without fossil or
nuclear backup would also be hostage to solar radiation reductions from volcanic events such as the
1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which caused widespread crop failure during the year without a summer
that followed. [Science 285 (5433): 1489 (3 Sept. 99)] Wind farms, besides the waste stream resulting
from manufacturing their millions of pounds of concrete and steel, their inefficiency, low (because
intermittent) capacity and visual and noise pollution, are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred birds
of prey, including dozens of golden eagles, are killed every year by a single California wind farm; more
eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill. The
National Audubon Society has launched a campaign to save the California condor from a proposed
wind farm to be built by Enron north of Los Angeles. A wind farm equivalent in output and capacity to a
1,000 MWe fossil or nuclear plant would occupy some 2,000 square miles of land, [Estimated from NEI
(1999), p. 14 (quadruple 150,000 acres).] and even with substantial subsidies and uncharged pollution
externalities would produce electricity at double or triple the cost of fossil fuels. [Bradley (1997), p. 8.]
Hydroelectric power dams which submerge large areas of land, displace rural populations, change river
ecology, kill fish and raise concerns of catastrophic failure has lost its environmental constituency in
recent years. The U.S. Export-Import Bank was responding in part to environmental lobbying when it
denied funding to the PRCs 18,000 MW Three Gorges project. [Bradley (1997), p. 21, citing the New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal.] At least one quarter of the world potential for hydropower has
already been developed. Geothermal sources are inherently limited, and often coincide with scenic
sites (such as Yellowstone National Park) that conservationists understandably desire to preserve.
Because of these and other disadvantages, organizations such as the World Energy
Council and the IEA predict that hydroelectric generation will continue to account for
no more than its present 6.9 percent share of world primary energy supply, while
nonhydro renewables, even robustly subsidized, will move from their present 0.5
percent share to claim no more than 5 to 8 percent by 2020. [IAEA (1997), p. 10.] In
the United States, which leads the world in renewable energy generation, utility
renewable generation declined by 9.4 percent from 1997 to 1998: hydro decreased
9.2 percent, geothermal decreased 5.4 percent, wind decreased 50.5 percent, and
solar decreased 27.7 percent. [Data from DOE/EIA database, Annual Utility Electric
Production Report 1998.] The vision of a world run on pristine energy generated
from renewables which, like controlled thermonuclear fusion, recede as practical
sources despite expensively subsidized R&D always twenty years down the road has
romanticized a far less realistic technological exuberance among environmental
activists than that of which they have long accused advocates of nuclear power.
Along the way, the public investment in renewables might have been spent making
coal plants and automobiles cleaner. The 1997 U.S. Federal R&D investment per
thousand kilowatt-hours, for example, was only $0.05 for nuclear and coal, $0.58 for
oil, $0.41 for gas but $4,769 for wind and $17,006 for photovoltaics. [EIA, cited in
NEI (1999), p. 15.] While nuclear power avoided millions of tons of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases, The $5.8 billion spent by the [U.S.] Department of Energy on
wind and solar subsidies over the last 20 years is the financial equivalent of
replacing between 5,000 and 10,000 MW of the nations dirtiest coal capacity with
gas-fired combined-cycle units, which would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions
between one-third and two-thirds, Robert L. Bradley, Jr., of Houstons Institute for
Energy Research estimates. [Bradley (1997), p. 67, n. 305.] Replacing coal with
nuclear generation would have reduced overall emissions even more. Conservation
has also been heavily subsidized, making saved power twice as expensive in the
U.S. as generated power. [Bradley (1997), citing the EIA.] Overall, by Bradleys
estimate, U.S. conservation efforts and nonhydro renewables have benefitted from a
cumulative twenty-year taxpayer investment of some $30-$40 billion, the largest
governmental peacetime energy expenditure in U.S. history. [Bradley (1997), p. 4.]
Solar sucks
Photovoltaic cells are large semiconductors; their processing produces a highly toxic
waste stream of metals and solvents that requires special disposal technology. A
1,000 MWe solar electric plant using photovoltaics would generate 6,850 tonnes of
hazardous waste over a thirty-year lifetime from metals finishing alone. A
comparable solar thermal plant (mirrors focussed on a central tower) would require
primary metals that would generate 435,000 tonnes of manufacturing waste, of
which 16,300 tonnes would be contaminated with lead and chromium and
considered hazardous. [Lehman (1996), pp. 53-54.] Decentralized solar systems of
comparable capacity would use an equivalent volume of materials, but
decentralization is hardly feasible for the megapolises of today and tomorrow. A
global solar energy system would consume at least 20 percent of identified world
iron resources. It would require a century to build and a substantial fraction of
annual world iron production to maintain. The energy necessary to manufacture
sufficient solar collectors to cover a half-million square miles of the earths surface
and to deliver the electricity through long-distance transmission systems would
itself add grievously to the global burden of pollution and greenhouse gas. [Cf.
Weingart (1978).] A global solar energy system without fossil or nuclear backup
would also be hostage to solar radiation reductions from volcanic events such as the
1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which caused widespread crop failure during the year
without a summer that followed. [Science 285 (5433): 1489 (3 Sept. 99)]
Wind sucks
Wind farms, besides the waste stream resulting from manufacturing their millions of
pounds of concrete and steel, their inefficiency, low (because intermittent) capacity
and visual and noise pollution, are mighty slayers of birds. Several hundred birds of
prey, including dozens of golden eagles, are killed every year by a single California
wind farm; more eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the
disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill. The National Audubon Society has launched a
campaign to save the California condor from a proposed wind farm to be built by
Enron north of Los Angeles. A wind farm equivalent in output and capacity to a
1,000 MWe fossil or nuclear plant would occupy some 2,000 square miles of land,
[Estimated from NEI (1999), p. 14 (quadruple 150,000 acres).] and even with
substantial subsidies and uncharged pollution externalities would produce electricity
at double or triple the cost of fossil fuels. [Bradley (1997), p. 8.] Hydroelectric power
dams which submerge large areas of land, displace rural populations, change river
ecology, kill fish and raise concerns of catastrophic failure has lost its environmental
constituency in recent years. The U.S. Export-Import Bank was responding in part to
environmental lobbying when it denied funding to the PRCs 18,000 MW Three
Gorges project. [Bradley (1997), p. 21, citing the New York Times and the Wall Street
Journal.] At least one quarter of the world potential for hydropower has already been
developed. Geothermal sources are inherently limited, and often coincide with
scenic sites (such as Yellowstone National Park) that conservationists
understandably desire to preserve.
NG sucks
Natural gas has many virtues as a fuel compared to coal or oil, and its increasing
share of world primary energy across the first half of the 21st century is assured.
But its supply is limited and unevenly distributed; it is expensive as a power source
compared to coal or uranium; it has higher value as a feedstock for materials and as
a substitute for petroleum in transportation, particularly for fuel cells; and it pollutes
the air. Natural gas fires and explosions are significant risks and an uncounted
externality. A single mile of gas pipeline three feet in diameter at 1,000 psi pressure
contains the equivalent of two-thirds of a kiloton of explosive energy; a million miles
of such large pipelines lace the earth. A 1,000 MWe natural gas plant releases 5.5
tonnes per day of sulfur oxides, 21 tonnes per day of nitrogen oxides, 1.6 tonnes
per day of carbon monoxide and 0.9 tonnes per day of particulates. U.S. annual
discharges in 1994 generating energy from natural gas totaled about 5.5 billion
tonnes. [Lehman (1996), p. 32.]
NPT addon
1nc/ 2nc?
A strong US nuclear program key to enforcing the NPT
df)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESTORING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN NUCLEAR ENERGY: A

NATIONAL SECURITY IMPERATIVE America's nuclear energy industry is in decline.
Low natural gas prices, financing hurdles, failure to find a permanent repository for
high-level nuclear waste, reactions to the Fukushima accident in Japan, and other
factors are hastening the day when existing U.S. reactors become uneconomic,
while making it increasingly difficult to build new ones. Two generations after the
United States took this wholly new and highly sophisticated technology from
laboratory experiment to successful commercialization, our nation is in danger of
losing an industry of unique strategic importance and unique promise for
addressing the environmental and energy security demands of the future.
The decline of the U.S. nuclear energy industry could be much more rapid than
policymakers and stakeholders anticipate. With 102 operating reactors and the
world's largest base of installed nuclear capacity, it has been widely assumed that
the United Stateseven without building many new plantswould continue to have
a large presence in this industry for decades to come. Instead, current market
conditions are such that growing numbers of units face unprecedented financial
pressures and could be retired early. Early retirements, coupled with scheduled
license expirations and dim prospects for new construction, point to diminishing
domestic opportunities for U.S. nuclear energy firms. The outlook is much different
in China, India, Russia, and other countries, where governments are looking to
significantly expand their nuclear energy commitments. Dozens of new entrants
plan on adding nuclear technology to their generating mix. furthering the spread of
nuclear materials and know-how around the globe. It is in our nation's best interest
that U.S. companies meet a significant share of this demand for nuclear technology
not simply because of trade and employment benefits, but because exports of
U.S.-origin technology and materials are accompanied by conditions that protect our
nonproliferation interests. Yet U.S. firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage
in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive export policies. U.S.
efforts to facilitate peaceful uses of nuclear technology helped build a global nuclear
energy infrastructurebut that infrastructure could soon be dominated by countries
with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial
presence in new nuclear markets. America's ability to Influence
nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors worldwide is bound
to diminish. In this context, federal action to reverse the U.S. nuclear industry's
impending decline is a national security imperative. The United States cannot afford
to become irrelevant in a new nuclear age. This brief outlines why. MAKING THE
CONNECTION: HOW A STRONG CIVIL NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SUPPORTS U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY OBJECTIVES From the start of the nuclear era until the 1980s, the United
States was the dominant global supplier of commercial nuclear energy technology.
American leadership was instrumental in shaping the global nuclear nonproliferation
regime and nuclear safety norms. A strong domestic nuclear program and Projected
Installed Global Nuclear supportive government policies helped sustain this
dominant position. Today, the United States continues to exercise Influence by
virtue of its economic power and recognized expertise in facility operations, safety,
and security. But our nation's ability to promote nonproliferation and other national
security objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation has diminished. An
important source of U.S. leverage in the past was the ability to provide reliable
nuclear technologies, fuel, and services to countries under strict nonproliferation
controls and conditions. These controls and conditions go beyond provisions in the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferatlon of Nuclear Weapons and include nine criteria that the
United States applies to any agreement with a nonnuclear weapon state: for
example, a guarantee that the recipient state will not enrich or reprocess
transferred nuclear material without U.S. approval . Installed Capacity (Gwe) Data
from World Wiclrar Today, much of the world's nuclear manufacturing and supply
capability still relies on designs and technologies developed in the United States.
But the firms involved are largely foreign- owned. Even in the market for
conventional lightwater reactors, where the United States led the world for
decades, all but one of the U.S.-based designers and manufacturers have been
acquired by non-U.S.-based competitors. The countries that are currently
strengthening their nuclear capabilities and global market position (i.e.. France.
Japan. South Korea, and Russia, with China close behind) have different reasons for
pursuing nuclear technologysome are primarily concerned about energy security
or about preserving domestic fossil fuel resources, while others may be motivated
by a mix of nationalistic and geopolitical considerations. But in all cases they see
nuclear technology as offering long-term benefits that Justify a significant near-term
sovereign investment, even faced with the prospect that world natural gas prices
may fall if the unconventional gas production technologies in use In the United
States are successfully applied in other parts of the world. The most aggressive of
these new national nuclear programs is underway in China. By 2020. China could
have 50 commercial reactors in operation, compared with only 3 in 2000. India
could add 7 new plantsand Russia in the next five years. These trends are
expected to accelerate out to 2030. by which time China. India, and Russia could
account for nearly 40 percent of global nuclear generating capacity. Meanwhile,
many smaller nationsmostly in Asia and the Middle Eastare planning to get into
the nuclear energy business for the first time. In all. as many as 15 new nations
could have nuclear generating capacity within the next two decades, added to the
more than 30 countries that have it today or have had it in the past. The national
security concern is that much of this new interest in nuclear power is coming from
countries and regions that may not share America's interests and priorities In the
areas of nonproliferation and global security. And our leverage to influence their
nuclear programs will be weak at best if U.S. companies cannot offer the
technologies, services, and expertise these countries need to operate a successful
nuclear program (including not only reactors, but other fuel-cycle facilities).
Expanded nuclear electricity generation outside the United States will drive a
commensurate increase in the demand for enriched uranium. The facilities needed
to supply this demand because they can be used 10 produce both nuclear fuel
and nuclear weapons-usable materialare of particular national security concern.
During the 1960s, the U.S. operated the only uranium enrichment facility wholly
dedicated to producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) for commercial purposes. Today,
the single U.S.-based enrichment company. USEC accounts for less than 20 percent
of global LEU production capacity. USEC recently announced the shutdown of
uranium enrichment at its only operating plant in Paducah. Kentucky, which was
viewed as being outdated and too inefficient to be competitive with foreign
suppliers. In fact, much of the fuel used in U.S. reactors today is fabricated from
imported enriched uranium obtained by USEC under a very successful agreement
with the Russian government to supply down-blended highly enriched uranium, a
contract that expires in 2013. Although USEC plans to replace the aging Paducah
plant with a more advanced facility, prospects for following through on this plan are
far from certain. Meanwhile, the European uranium enrichment company (Urenco) is
expanding its market share worldwide with several new facilities planned or under
construction in Europe and the United States. In addition. Russia is taking steps to
modernize its enrichment services capability. All told, the U.S. share of global
exports for enriched uranium and other sensitive nuclear materials declined from
approximately 29 percent in 1994 to 10 percent in 2008. A healthy domestic nuclear
infrastructure also serves our national security interests by supporting the nuclear
propulsion program of the U.S. Navy, which operates a fleet of 83 nuclear- powered
submarines and aircraft carriers. While the Navy is careful to develop sources of
supply that can weather short-term ups and downs in the commercial industry, a
sustained decline in the commercial industry could have a direct and negative
impact on the naval program. Finally, the U.S. nuclear industry contributes to
energy security at home. Today, nuclear power plants supply nearly 20 percent of
U.S. electricity needs while also playing a central role in assuring grid reliability in
several regions of the county and avoiding significant air pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions. Yet with uncertainty about the prospects for new plant construction
over the next decade and with nearly all existing plants scheduled to be shut down
by 2050. the share of electricity generated by nuclear reactors in the United States
will decline steadily to near zero by mid-century. By that time, the United States
could be host to as little as 2 percent of global installed nuclear capacitydown
from 25 percent today.
The NPT is weak now, strengthening it is key to prevent

terrorism
-
IAEA, NPT enforcement key, because it monitors nuclear materials that could
be attacked
Vulnerable states more likely to lead to terrorism, not terror-states
Peterson 10 citing Obama and Ellen Tauscher, US Under Secretary for Arms
Control and International Security (Scott Peterson, May 3. 2010, CS Monitor, NPT
101: How relevant is cold war treaty in age of terrorism,

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0503/NPT-101-How-relevant-iscold-war-treaty-in-age-of-terrorism)
The NPT was created to reduce the risk of nuclear war. But today many see nuclear
terrorism as the greater threat. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) can help by
safeguarding nuclear material, say arms control analysts. ISTANBUL, TURKEY The
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a 40-year-old relic of the cold war. As
diplomats and arms control wonks review the treaty during a May 3-28 conference
in New York, they are looking at how it can be applied to an age where nuclear
terrorism is often deemed a bigger danger than the number of weapons held by the
US and Russia. President Obama said last month the single biggest threat to US
security comes from a nuclear device in the hands of groups like Al Qaeda, which
are in the process of trying to secure a nuclear weapon ... that they have no
compunction at using. How can the NPT minimize the chance of an atomic terrorist
attack in the modern era? Experts say the answer lies in better safeguarding
nuclear material and the knowledge necessary to create it. The greater danger,
they maintain, is not direct cooperation between states and terrorist groups, but
states leaving themselves vulnerable to exploitation by militants. I would worry
more about a nuclear terrorist attack that comes about because of negligence by a
state, than as a result of the deliberate transfer of material, says Mike Levi, a
nuclear specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. Near the top of that short list
is a country such as Pakistan. Though not a member of the NPT, it has acquired as
many as 90 nuclear warheads. Some worry that those could fall into the hands of Al
Qaeda-linked militants, who have been waging brutal attacks in Pakistan. The
countrys leadership routinely says its nuclear facilities are safe. The Obama
administration argues that conditions conducive to attacks are perhaps more
important than state sponsorship. The 9/11 hijackers didnt get their box cutters
from Saudi Arabia, but that doesnt mean that Saudi Arabia wasnt a problem," adds
Levi. "It does mean that the problem and the solution extends beyond the primary
sponsor of any terrorist group. For the 189 nations reviewing the NPT, that means
looking for ways to enhance safeguard measures, so that fissile material the
highly enriched uranium that can be used in a nuclear device doesnt fall into the
wrong hands. Critical to this task, analysts agree, is strengthening the ability of
the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to monitor nuclear material.
For US diplomats, that means pushing for universal adherence to the Additional
Protocol of the NPT, which among other stringent measures enables no-notice
inspections, anywhere. The IAEA must be able to provide credible assurances that
not only declared nuclear material under safeguards is not being diverted for
military purposes, but that there are no undeclared fissile material and nuclear
weapons activities, the US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security Ellen Tauscher said April 29. We will push to make sure that there are real
consequences for those states that choose not to comply with their nonproliferation
obligations.
UQ
Weak leadership undermines the NPT and IAEA- CP is needed
to bolster strength
Asgar 14 Rizwan Asgar is a research scholar and a former visiting fellow at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies(Rizwan Asgar, February 25 th, 2014, Daily
Times Pakistan, Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/25-Feb-2014/preventing-nuclear-terrorism)
Any effort by the international community to combat nuclear terrorism should be

based on achieving three fundamental objectives: (a) securing all vulnerable
stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials from such risks of falling into terrorist
hands,;(b) preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, and (c)
replacing all HEU in civilian research reactors worldwide with Low Enriched Uranium
(LEU), which cannot be used in making bombs. Countries where the dangers of
terrorists stealing nuclear weapons are very high cannot afford to remain in a state
of denial for too long. On the international front, immediate steps are needed to be
taken to institute a standardised noncompliance mechanism to enforce the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT)/International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) framework. In
the 2015 NPT Review Conference, Article X of the NPT, which allows states to
withdraw from the treaty with minimal sanctions, must also be re-examined.
According to some nuclear experts, these steps should be accomplished through the
UN Security Council. The Security Council must issue a binding resolution declaring
noncompliance with or withdrawal from the NPT to be a threat to international
peace, thus attracting enforcement action by the Security Council under UN Charter
Chapter VII. By reducing the number of countries with nuclear weapons or weaponsusable nuclear materials, terrorist groups will have less places to buy or steal these
critical components of nuclear terrorism. However, the credibility of these steps will
be established only if the NPT Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) go beyond paying lip
service to their commitment to Article VI of the NPT, which binds them to pursue
efforts towards complete nuclear disarmament. Though some modest gains have
been made, the NWS have failed to take practical steps collectively to fulfil their
obligations under the NPT. Such attitude results in undermining the
legitimacy of the NPT/IAEA framework, and is detrimental to the cause of
containing nuclear materials. As a significant step towards securing existing
stockpiles of nuclear materials, the international community should implement the
2005 amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
(CPPNM), as well as the International Convention of the Suppression of Acts of
Nuclear Terrorism. The enforcement of these two conventions would help establish
common standards for domestic nuclear security and enhance international
cooperation in the realm of preventing nuclear terrorism.
The NPT is weak now, means nuclear terror risk is high

-
IAEA, NPT enforcement key, because it monitors nuclear materials that could
be attacked
Vulnerable states more likely to lead to terrorism, not terror-states
sponsor of any terrorist group. For the 189 nations reviewing the NPT, that means
looking for ways to enhance safeguard measures, so that fissile material the
highly enriched uranium that can be used in a nuclear device doesnt fall into the
wrong hands. Critical to this task, analysts agree, is strengthening the ability of
the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to monitor nuclear material.
For US diplomats, that means pushing for universal adherence to the Additional
Protocol of the NPT, which among other stringent measures enables no-notice
inspections, anywhere. The IAEA must be able to provide credible assurances that
not only declared nuclear material under safeguards is not being diverted for
military purposes, but that there are no undeclared fissile material and nuclear
weapons activities, the US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security Ellen Tauscher said April 29. We will push to make sure that there are real
consequences for those states that choose not to comply with their nonproliferation
obligations.
Link
Independent internal link: Nuclear reactors help reduce
nuclear weapons
nuclear weapons.
Impact extension
North Korea, Iran, Syria will use nukes, NPT enforcement is key
Kane 12 (Summer 2012, Samuel Kane, GlobalSolutions.org, Preventing Nuclear
Terrorism: Nuclear Security, the Nonproliferation Regime, and the Threat of Terrorist
Nukes, https://globalsolutions.org/files/public/documents/Sam-Kane-PreventingNuclear-Terrorism.pdf)
For most of its recent history, North Korea has had a decidedly antagonistic
relationship with the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. However, prior to
the mid-1990s. North Korea actually seemed to be on the path to becoming a
responsible member of this framework. It signed on to the NPT in 1985, and in 1992,
signed the "|oint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" with
South Korea, pledging to "not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store,
deploy, or use nuclear weapons." Trouble began to brew in 1993, when inspectors
from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international community's
nuclear watchdog, were denied access to two North Korean nuclear waste sites. The
IAEA responded by asking the United Nations Security Council for permission to
conduct additional inspections, which prompted North Korea to submit its
resignation from the NPT. Eventually, the US was able to convince the Kim regime to
withdraw its resignation, and further collaborated with the regime to forge an
"Agreed Framework" in 1994, under which North Korea agreed to freeze activity at
its plutonium facilities and work to implement the terms of the 1992 Joint
Declaration, in exchange for US assistance in reactor construction. However, the
Agreed Framework would ultimately collapse in the early years of the second Bush
administration, amidst US concerns that North Korea was embarking on a secret
uranium-enrichment program. The US imposed economic sanctions late in 2002,
prompting North Korea to resume nuclear activity, expel IAEA inspectors, and
withdraw from the NPT. Since then, North Korea has been engaged in on-and- off
multilateral discussions regarding its nuclear program (the so-called Six Party Talks,
including the US, Russia, China, Japan. North Korea, and South Korea), though no
lasting agreement has come of these negotiations. The Nature of the Nuclear Threat
The threat of North Korean nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands manifests
itself primarily in the possibility that North Korea could, directly or indirectly, give
nuclear weapons or materials to terrorist groups. Several of North Korea's past
actions demonstrate its general disregard for international nonproliferation norms.
For instance, a 2010 UN report asserted that the regime was using a variety of
illicit means to export nuclear technology to Iran and Syria, thus
circumventing the UN sanctions that had been levied against it53 In addition.
North Korea was an active participant in AQ Khan's nuclear proliferation network,5*
and allegedly paid more than S3 million to senior members of the Pakistani military
for access to nuclear knowledge and equipment." Such examples paint a picture of
a regime not beholden to traditional norms that restrain governments from acts of
nuclear proliferation. Moreover, North Korea's diplomatic isolation on the world
stage, coupled with the bleak state of its economy, puts the regime in a situation in
which it may feel that it has nothing to lose by spreading nuclear materials,
technology, and know-how to other states, or even a terrorist group. As one expert
told the Council on Foreign Relations, in a 2010 interview also referenced in Section
1, "North Korea would sell just about anything to anyone."56 Though that expert
was also quick to assert that no evidence has yet been presented that indicates that
North Korea has sold nuclear assets to non-state actors, the regime's past actions
do not exactly assuage fears that such an event lies within the realm of possibility. A
secondary concern with regards to the North Korea nuclear program is the
possibility that a collapse of the country's authoritarian regime could lead to a loss
of control over its nuclear arsenal. This issue has taken on an added relevance in
the past year, as the death of Kim |ong-il has raised concerns over whether the
Supreme Leader's young successor, Kim Jong-un, is capable of maintaining the Kim
family*s grip on political power. If the Kim regime were to collapse, its nuclear
assets could potentially "fall into the hands of warlords or factions," and these
elements might very well be even less beholden to international proliferation norms
than the current regime.57 Moreover, even if the US were to intervene and attempt
to unilaterally secure North Korea's arsenal, the task would undoubtedly be
complicated by the reality that few outside the inner circles of the regime's nuclear
program have any idea of precisely how large the arsenal is, or where it is
located.58 US Involvement The US effort to prevent North Korean nuclear assets
from falling into terrorist hands consists of two primary components: (1) diplomatic
efforts aimed at convincing the Kim regime to dismantle its nuclear program and
return to the NPT; and (2) interdiction efforts designed to prevent North Korea
from proliferating its nuclear assets and know-how to outside sources. Regarding
the first point: unlike Russia and Pakistan, which the US accepts (somewhat
begrudgingly, in Pakistan's case) as members of the nuclear weapons club, a
nuclear North Korea has been described by US officials as an "intolerable" and
"unacceptable" reality.59 As mentioned earlier, the US has been engaged in
discussions with North Korea regarding its nuclear program since the 1990s, and,
throughout this time period, it has vehemently opposed the idea of a nuclear-armed
Kim regime, insisting that the end result of any agreement must be a nuclear
weapons-free North Korea that is part of the NPT and subject to IAEA
oversight Though the specifics of its negotiating strategy have varied, the US has
generally offered North Korea a combination of "carrots" (energy assistance,
assurances of peace), balanced by the threat of "sticks" (economic sanctions), in
order to bring about North Korea's nuclear disarmament.60 In addition to its
diplomatic efforts, the US has also sought to prevent North Korean nuclear exports
from reaching their intended destinations by employing a strategy of naval
interdiction. This strategy is employed under the umbrella of the Proliferation
Security Initiative (PSI), a global cooperative effort, launched in 2003 and involving
more than 90 countries, that "aims to stop trafficking of weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and
non-state actors of proliferation concern."61 Though the US and its allies have yet
to interdict any North Korean ships carrying nuclear materials, several North Korean
vessels carrying missile technologies and conventional weaponry have been
successfully turned back by PSI participants,62 63 bolstering hopes that these
interdiction efforts will help to deter North Korea from attempting to proliferate
nuclear materials to other states and non-state actors. Other States While a
combination of academic literature and historical evidence supports the assertion
that Russia, Pakistan, and North Korea represent the most likely sources of a
terrorist-controlled nuclear weapon, they are certainly not the only possible sources.
After all. the nuclear weapons club contains six other members, and at least one
additional state could very well join the group within the next decade. Therefore, it
is important that this paper briefly addresses nuclear security with regards to these
other states.
NPT is key to prevent terror; decreases number of unsecure

nukes and increases safety regulations, but currently isnt
enforced well
The NPT At present, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
stands as a core part of the international nonproliferation regime. Broadly, the
treaty, which entered into force in 1970, aims to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons beyond five recognized nuclear weapons states (the US, Russia, China, UK,
and France). In 2004, Thomas Graham, Jr. aptly described the NPT as being based,
in part, on a fundamental tradeoff between nuclear weapons states (NWS) and nonnuclear weapons states (NNWS). To use the words of Graham, Jr.: The NPT is based
on a central bargain: the NPT non-nuciear-weapon states agree never to acquire
nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share
the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament
aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.77 Without question, the
NPT has had a positive impact on the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. With all but
four countries party to the treaty (India, Pakistan, and Israel are non-signatories,
and North Korea withdrew in 2003), the NPT "has the widest adherence of any arms
control agreement" currently in effect.78 Because of its wide acceptance within the
international community, the treaty has played an integral role in advancing nuclear
nonproliferation as a global norm, and as an ethic that responsible members of
international society are expected to subscribe to.79 Additionally, within the context
of preventing nuclear materials from falling into terrorist hands, the NPT's
positive impact is twofold.80 First, by limiting the possession of nuclear weapons
(ideally) to a core group of five states, the NPT helps to keep nuclear weapons from
being developed in countries that are unable to adequately protect them. Second,
the NPT implements controls on the transfer of nuclear materials and requires all
nuclear states to submit to IAEA standards regarding "accounting and control"
systems, thus making nuclear materials less susceptible to theft or unauthorized
export. Despite these positive effects, the NPT has also proven to be a flawed
institution in several key ways. First, the treaty has long struggled with the issue of
noncompliance. As analysts at the Nuclear Threat Initiative have pointed out, "the
NPT does not have a built-in mechanism for non-compliance."81 Instead, when a
state is found to be in violation of the terms of the NPT, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (the IAEA, which, as will be detailed later in this section, is
responsible for actually carrying out compliance inspections) simply reports the
violating state to the UN, which has the responsibility of actually determining a
punishment. This method stands in stark contrast to other nuclear treaties, such as
the proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which would "[provide] for
measures to redress a violation of the Treaty and to ensure compliance, including
sanctions, and for settlement of disputes."82 Because the NPT does not contain a
standardized framework for dealing with violators, it has faced difficulties in
dissuading noncompliance, and in building consensus among signatories regarding
how to enforce compliance.83
NPT prevents prolif

The NPT At present, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
stands as a core part of the international nonproliferation regime. Broadly, the
treaty, which entered into force in 1970, aims to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons beyond five recognized nuclear weapons states (the US, Russia, China, UK,
and France). In 2004, Thomas Graham, Jr. aptly described the NPT as being based,
in part, on a fundamental tradeoff between nuclear weapons states (NWS) and nonnuclear weapons states (NNWS). To use the words of Graham, Jr.: The NPT is based
on a central bargain: the NPT non-nuciear-weapon states agree never to acquire
nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share
the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament
aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.77 Without question, the
NPT has had a positive impact on the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. With all but
four countries party to the treaty (India, Pakistan, and Israel are non-signatories,
and North Korea withdrew in 2003), the NPT "has the widest adherence of any arms
control agreement" currently in effect.78 Because of its wide acceptance within the
international community, the treaty has played an integral role in advancing nuclear
nonproliferation as a global norm, and as an ethic that responsible members of
international society are expected to subscribe to.79 Additionally, within the context
of preventing nuclear materials from falling into terrorist hands, the NPT's positive
impact is twofold.80 First, by limiting the possession of nuclear weapons (ideally) to
a core group of five states, the NPT helps to keep nuclear weapons from being
developed in countries that are unable to adequately protect them. Second, the NPT
implements controls on the transfer of nuclear materials and requires all nuclear
states to submit to IAEA standards regarding "accounting and control" systems, thus
making nuclear materials less susceptible to theft or unauthorized export. Despite
these positive effects, the NPT has also proven to be a flawed institution in several
key ways. First, the treaty has long struggled with the issue of noncompliance. As
analysts at the Nuclear Threat Initiative have pointed out, "the NPT does not have a
built-in mechanism for non-compliance."81 Instead, when a state is found to be in
violation of the terms of the NPT, the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA,
which, as will be detailed later in this section, is responsible for actually carrying out
compliance inspections) simply reports the violating state to the UN, which has the
responsibility of actually determining a punishment. This method stands in stark
contrast to other nuclear treaties, such as the proposed Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT), which would "[provide] for measures to redress a violation of the
Treaty and to ensure compliance, including sanctions, and for settlement of
disputes."82 Because the NPT does not contain a standardized framework for
dealing with violators, it has faced difficulties in dissuading noncompliance, and in
building consensus among signatories regarding how to enforce compliance.83
Bio/ Chem terror solvency

NPT solve bioterror: BWC modelling and dual-use facilities
Rosenberg 07 (Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Acronym institute for Disarmament
Diplomacy, April 30, 2007,, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd84/84bhr.htm, A
Counter-Bioterrorism Strategy For The New UN Secretary-General)
The failure of the BWC Protocol negotiations in 2001 made the defunct Protocol
(which still remains on the table in so-called "Sleeping Beauty" mode) a political
weapon that any state party to the Convention can invoke if it wishes to prevent
new negotiations. At the same time, many states parties that formerly supported
the Protocol now consider its text - as it finally evolved under the consensus rule,
stripped of much of its early value - to be obsolete in the light of recent experience
in Iraq. Nonetheless, many parties remain committed to the development of
measures to verify compliance with the BWC "in the longer term".[31] For the
present, all parties warily avoided the issue at the Review Conference, thereby
enabling some progress on other issues.[32] A strengthened and operational
capability for biological investigations, maintained by the Secretary General and
available to the Security Council to investigate possible violations of the BWC, would
be a significant step forward for the Convention. It would tend to deter states
parties from gross violation of the BWC and would provide an alternative to military
action in confronting serious biological threats.[33] But it would not be equivalent to
a BWC compliance regime. The permanent members of the Security Council would
effectively be excluded from investigation, and there still would be no routine or
periodic measures for assessing compliance. If eventually an appropriate BWC
compliance regime is adopted by the states parties, its inspectorate could be jumpstarted by a skilled and ready, upto-date UN biological investigation mechanism.
There is also another interesting possibility: a competent UN investigational
capability could evolve into a dedicated international biological inspection agency,
serving the BWC but outside it, much as the IAEA serves the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). A major element in an effective biological regime is likely
to be the monitoring of dual-use biological facilities by maintaining a constant
possibility of inspection, with specified access required. Such a regime, which could
be viewed as a "safeguards" mechanism, could be established through an
agreement analogous to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional
Protocol concluded with the IAEA by parties to the NPT to cover dual-use
nuclear facilities. -
Terror good bad

Nuclear terror very likely and very bad; deterrence fails
-
Hege doesnt solve, only CP

increasingly easy to steal nukes now
a terror nuke would be huge and bad
Asgar 14 Rizwan Asgar is a research scholar and a former visiting fellow at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies(Rizwan Asgar, February 25 th, 2014, Daily
Times Pakistan, Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/25-Feb-2014/preventing-nuclear-terrorism)
Preventing nuclear terrorism Unlike the Cold War period, when both the US and the
Soviet Union knew that a nuclear attack from either side would be met with a
massive retaliatory strike, conventional deterrence does not work against the
terrorist groups On October 11, 2001, exactly a month after the terrorist attacks on
the World Trade Centre, President George W Bush was informed by his CIA director,
George Tenet, about the presence of al Qaeda-linked terrorists in New York City with
a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb. Overwhelmed by paralysing fear that terrorists could
have smuggled another nuclear weapon into Washington DC as well, President Bush
ordered Vice President Dick Cheney, along with several hundred federal employees
from almost a dozen government agencies, to leave for some undisclosed location
outside the capital where they could ensure the continuity of government in case of
a nuclear explosion in Washington DC. Although, after subsequent investigations,
the CIAs report turned out to be false, this incident showed that even a false alarm
signalling a nuclear attack could lead to a much higher probability of disaster. A
nuclear attack in downtown Washington DC has the potential to kill hundreds of
thousands of people immediately and wipe the White House, the State Department
and many other buildings off the face of the earth, making the 9/11 attacks a
historical footnote. It is evident that the spectre of a terrorist-controlled nuclear
weapon is a real threat and is global in scope. Given the potentially disastrous
consequences, even a small possibility of terrorists obtaining and detonating a
nuclear device justifies urgent action. The most urgent security threat to the world
today is the possibility of the stealing of weapons or fissile materials by terrorists.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, hundreds of confirmed cases of successful
theft of nuclear materials were reported in Russia. In 1997, General Alexander
Lebed, assistant for national security affairs to Boris Yeltsin, revealed that 84 out of
132 special KGB suitcase nuclear weapons were unaccounted for in Russia. There
are also widespread apprehensions expressed by the international community that
militants could steal Pakistans nuclear weapons or fissile material. Unfortunately,
some incidents of jihadi penetration of Pakistans armed forces have further fuelled
this perception. In 2001, US officials discovered that Osama bin Laden and his
deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, were in contact with two retired Pakistani nuclear
scientists for assistance in making a small nuclear device. Later in 2003, some
junior Pakistani army and air force officers colluded with al Qaeda terrorists to
attempt to assassinate President Musharraf and enforce sharia in Pakistan.
Notwithstanding that the dangers about the security of Pakistans nuclear weapons
might be highly exaggerated; some genuine concerns arising due to links between
terrorists and government authorities must be immediately addressed. Umar Khalid
Khurasani, the ameer (head) of the Mohmand Agency chapter of the Tehreek-eTaliban Pakistan (TTP), also wants to seize nuclear weapons and overthrow the
government of Pakistan. Another potential source for the theft of fissile material is
more than 130 civilian research reactors worldwide operating with Highly Enriched
Uranium (HEU). Most of these facilities have very modest security - in many
cases, no more than a night watchman. Unlike the Cold War period, when both
the US and the Soviet Union knew that a nuclear attack from either side would be
met with a massive retaliatory strike, conventional deterrence does not work
against the terrorist groups. In a famous 2007 Wall Street Journal article by Henry
Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn (together known as the four
horsemen), it was claimed that, Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state
terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In todays
war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of
mass destruction...unless urgent new actions are taken, the US soon will be
compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically
disorienting, and economically even more costly than was the Cold War.
Impact already solved: 56/24 T, IAEA strengthening, and the

2000 NPT conference
Dhanapala02 Jayantha Dhanapala is the Under-Secretary-General for
Disarmament Affairs at the United Nations (Jayantha, April 2 nd, 2002, United Nations,
THE NPT, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, AND TERRORISM,
http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/HR/docs/2002/2002Apr09_NewYork.pdf)
Global Problems Require Multilateral Solutions Both issues are, first of all, global
problems demanding solutions that will require extensive multilateral cooperation.
While numerous forms of gross political violence are largely confined to existing
national borders, terrorism involving the actual or potential use of weapons of mass
destruction is another matter entirely. Because of the trans-national effects of the
use of such weapons, their indiscriminate effects on military and civilian targets
alike, and the worldwide market for the technologies and materials that terrorists
can use to make such weapons - this type of terrorism requires responses both
within and among nation states. It also requires responses that require a great deal
of public understanding and support. At the United Nations, we have many efforts
underway that bear directly on this subject. Late last year. Security Council
resolution 1373 established a special committee on counter- terrorism. This
resolution identified a number of specific actions for all states to take to alleviate
the global terrorist threat. For those of you who are interested in further details
about this committee. I encourage you to consult the UN's new web site devoted to
the mandate and activities of this committee. The General Assembly, meanwhile,
adopted resolution 56/24 T, which called upon all Member States to renew and fulfill
their individual and collective commitments to multilateral cooperation in the fields
of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. This progress, the resolution
emphasized, is in order to contribute to global efforts against terrorism. This was a
synergistic resolution, par excellence. The Secretariat is also very much involved in
exploring possible future contributions of the United Nations to the global counterterrorist effort. The Secretary-General has established a Policy Working Group on the
UN and Terrorism with several subgroups to look into the many facets of this threat.
I am currently chairing the one dealing with WMD terrorism. We have already
completed a preliminary report on this subject and while I will not provide a detailed
summary, I would like to confirm that the Secretariat takes this threat very seriously
-- while recognizing the many obstacles that terrorists face in acquiring weapons of
mass destruction and in using them to produce large-scale civilian casualties. Our
report gives particular attention to the problem of strengthening the physical
security and safeguards over the special materials that can be used as nuclear or
radiological weapons. We also point to the possibility -- however remote it may now
seem in many instances -- that terrorists might someday acquire new types of
weapons of mass destruction. The events of 11 September also encouraged the
International Atomic Energy Agency to focus greater attention on the need to
strengthen physical security over nuclear materials. Last month, its Board of
Governors approved in principle a plan of action to upgrade such controls worldwide
with a view to preventing additional opportunities for nuclear terrorism. The Board
recognized that national measures to protect nuclear material and facilities are
uneven and is seeking additional funds to help countries to finance the necessary
security improvements. On 17 June, an IAEA Experts Group will meet and, if all goes
well, will finalize a draft amendment to the Convention on Physical the Protection of
Nuclear Materials, which could become the focus of a major conference later this
year. In the field of counter-terrorism, there are already twelve United Nations
conventions dealing with this issue and work is continuing on a new convention on
the suppression of nuclear terrorism. One can hope that the events of 11 September
will inspire more and more states to join these treaties and to redouble their efforts
to conclude a new treaty against nuclear terrorism - all initiatives that would benefit
from advocacy efforts by groups in civil society. While the United Nations can
encourage its member states to move in these directions, the choices are of course
for the states themselves to make. The UN's experience in assisting the States
parties to the NPT during the Preparatory Committee sessions and Review
Conferences has shown, however, some subtle ways that the UN can at times exert
a positive independent influence. Because the NPT -- unlike the Chemical Weapons
Convention - lacks an institutional infrastructure, the United Nations has assisted
the NPT States parties in innumerable ways. While we cannot fully substitute for
such a permanent infrastructure, we assist both the States parties and groups in
civil society throughout the laborious work of the review process. By maintaining all
the official records of these deliberations, by offering our advice and counsel to
States parties, by helping to encourage public participation while promoting public
education, and by offering a common global forum for debate and deliberation - the
United Nations is making its our own contributions in the global effort to reduce
nuclear threats. Yet the primary responsibility for action still remains in the hands of
the States parties, in particular the nuclear-weapon states, and this is likely to
remain the case until a global nuclear disarmament regime can develop a stronger
legal and institutional infrastructure -- including, that is, a nuclear weapons
convention and some machinery to ensure that it is implemented. The "thirteen
steps" agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference were a very constructive step
forward in addressing this problem -- by establishing some specific benchmarks for
assessing progress in nuclear disarmament. Clearly full implementation of each of
these steps would advance substantially global efforts against nuclear terrorism - by
making nuclear materials harder to acquire, by further de-legitimizing the
possession of nuclear weapons per se by any country or anybody, and by
demonstrating to concerned citizens around the world that close multilateral
cooperation in disarmament and non-proliferation can produce peace and security
dividends -- not to mention cost savings -- that cannot be purchased by greater
reliance upon arms alone or the threat or use of force. This is. in essence, what a
good treaty review process is supposed to do: to build confidence, to alleviate
perceptions of security threats, and to underscore the positive gains from forging
and implementing multilateral commitments.
AT: state terror

*Protecting nuclear materials key; state-sponsored terror is
not the problem
sponsor of any terrorist group.
No prolif, countries wouldnt risk political risk

-
plutonium beyond capacity of terrorists

no way that country would lose the plutonium political fallout
plan decreases prolif, extracting nuclear energy prevents it from being
explosiv
Although power-reactor plutonium can theoretically be used to make nuclear

explosives, spent fuel is refractory and highly radioactive, beyond the capacity of
terrorists to process; weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be hot,
unstable and of uncertain yield. No nation has chosen to follow this route to build a
nuclear arsenal, nor is any likely to do so. Commercially viable [nuclear power]
plants are large and visible, comments former U.S. Undersecretary of Energy A.
David Rossin. Their customers visit them. International inspectors verify their
safeguards. It would be a treaty violation and a national disaster if any
attempt were made to divert commercially separated plutonium. It would
really be a huge risk, even for a desperate nation, to be caught in a diversion
attempt before it could build a credible nuclear arsenal. [Rossin (n.d.), p. 13.] The
risk of proliferation, the IAEA has concluded, is not zero and would not
become zero even if nuclear power ceased to exist. It is a continually
strengthened nonproliferation regime that will remain the cornerstone of efforts to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.[IAEA (1997), p. 30.] Ironically, burying
spent fuel without extracting its plutonium through reprocessing would actually
increase the longterm risk of nuclear proliferation, since the intensely radioactive
fission products that serve as a barrier to diversion (the spent fuel standard) decay
significantly in a century or less, and the decay of the less fissile and more
radioactive isotopes in spent fuel after one to three centuries improves the nuclear
explosive properties of the Pu the spent fuel contains. Besides extending the worlds
uranium resources almost indefinitely, a closed nuclear fuel cycle makes it possible
to convert plutonium to useful energy while breaking it down into more short-lived,
nonfissionable nuclear waste.
Other addons
Prolif*
PROLIF A strong US nuclear program key to preventing prolif
df)

with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial
presence in new nuclear markets. America's ability to Influence
nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors worldwide is bound
to diminish. In this context, federal action to reverse the U.S. nuclear industry's
impending decline is a national security imperative. The United States cannot afford
to become irrelevant in a new nuclear age. This brief outlines why. MAKING THE
CONNECTION: HOW A STRONG CIVIL NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SUPPORTS U.S. NATIONAL

SECURITY OBJECTIVES From the start of the nuclear era until the 1980s, the United
States was the dominant global supplier of commercial nuclear energy technology.
American leadership was instrumental in shaping the global nuclear nonproliferation
regime and nuclear safety norms. A strong domestic nuclear program and Projected
Installed Global Nuclear supportive government policies helped sustain this
dominant position. Today, the United States continues to exercise Influence by
virtue of its economic power and recognized expertise in facility operations, safety,
and security. But our nation's ability to promote nonproliferation and other national
security objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation has diminished. An
important source of U.S. leverage in the past was the ability to provide reliable
nuclear technologies, fuel, and services to countries under strict nonproliferation
controls and conditions. These controls and conditions go beyond provisions in the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferatlon of Nuclear Weapons and include nine criteria that the
United States applies to any agreement with a nonnuclear weapon state: for
example, a guarantee that the recipient state will not enrich or reprocess
transferred nuclear material without U.S. approval. Installed Capacity (Gwe) Data
from World Wiclrar Today, much of the world's nuclear manufacturing and supply
capability still relies on designs and technologies developed in the United States.
But the firms involved are largely foreign- owned. Even in the market for
conventional lightwater reactors, where the United States led the world for
decades, all but one of the U.S.-based designers and manufacturers have been
acquired by non-U.S.-based competitors. The countries that are currently
strengthening their nuclear capabilities and global market position (i.e.. France.
Japan. South Korea, and Russia, with China close behind) have different reasons for
pursuing nuclear technologysome are primarily concerned about energy security
or about preserving domestic fossil fuel resources, while others may be motivated
by a mix of nationalistic and geopolitical considerations. But in all cases they see
nuclear technology as offering long-term benefits that Justify a significant near-term
sovereign investment, even faced with the prospect that world natural gas prices
may fall if the unconventional gas production technologies in use In the United
States are successfully applied in other parts of the world. The most aggressive of
these new national nuclear programs is underway in China. By 2020. China could
have 50 commercial reactors in operation, compared with only 3 in 2000. India
could add 7 new plantsand Russia in the next five years. These trends are
expected to accelerate out to 2030. by which time China. India, and Russia could
account for nearly 40 percent of global nuclear generating capacity. Meanwhile,
many smaller nationsmostly in Asia and the Middle Eastare planning to get into
the nuclear energy business for the first time. In all. as many as 15 new nations
could have nuclear generating capacity within the next two decades, added to the
more than 30 countries that have it today or have had it in the past. The national
security concern is that much of this new interest in nuclear power is coming from
countries and regions that may not share America's interests and priorities In the
areas of nonproliferation and global security. And our leverage to influence their
nuclear programs will be weak at best if U.S. companies cannot offer the
technologies, services, and expertise these countries need to operate a successful
nuclear program (including not only reactors, but other fuel-cycle facilities).
Expanded nuclear electricity generation outside the United States will drive a
commensurate increase in the demand for enriched uranium. The facilities needed
to supply this demand because they can be used 10 produce both nuclear fuel
and nuclear weapons-usable materialare of particular national security concern.
During the 1960s, the U.S. operated the only uranium enrichment facility wholly
dedicated to producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) for commercial purposes. Today,
the single U.S.-based enrichment company. USEC accounts for less than 20 percent
of global LEU production capacity. USEC recently announced the shutdown of
uranium enrichment at its only operating plant in Paducah. Kentucky, which was
viewed as being outdated and too inefficient to be competitive with foreign
suppliers. In fact, much of the fuel used in U.S. reactors today is fabricated from
imported enriched uranium obtained by USEC under a very successful agreement
with the Russian government to supply down-blended highly enriched uranium, a
contract that expires in 2013. Although USEC plans to replace the aging Paducah
plant with a more advanced facility, prospects for following through on this plan are
modernize its enrichment services capability. All told, the U.S. share of global
exports for enriched uranium and other sensitive nuclear materials declined from
approximately 29 percent in 1994 to 10 percent in 2008. A healthy domestic nuclear
infrastructure also serves our national security interests by supporting the nuclear
propulsion program of the U.S. Navy, which operates a fleet of 83 nuclear- powered
submarines and aircraft carriers. While the Navy is careful to develop sources of
supply that can weather short-term ups and downs in the commercial industry, a
sustained decline in the commercial industry could have a direct and negative
Independent internal link: Nuclear reactors help reduce

nuclear weapons
nuclear weapons.
navy
NAVY A strong US nuclear power key to maintain naval
dominance- China, India, Russia, are expanding now
df)

significantly expand their nuclear energy commitments. Dozens of new entrants plan
on adding nuclear technology to their generating mix. furthering the spread of nuclear
materials and know-how around the globe. It is in our nation's best interest that U.S. companies
meet a significant share of this demand for nuclear technologynot simply because of trade and
employment benefits, but because exports of U.S.-origin technology and materials are accompanied by
conditions that protect our nonproliferation interests. Yet U.S. firms are currently at a competitive
disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive export

policies. U.S. efforts to facilitate peaceful uses of nuclear technology helped build a global
nuclear energy infrastructurebut that infrastructure could soon be dominated by countries
with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial presence in new nuclear
markets. America's ability to Influence nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors worldwide
is bound to diminish. In this context, federal action to reverse the U.S. nuclear industry's impending
decline is a national security imperative. The United States cannot afford to become irrelevant in a new
nuclear age. This brief outlines why. MAKING THE CONNECTION: HOW A STRONG CIVIL NUCLEAR
INDUSTRY SUPPORTS U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES From the start of the nuclear era until the
1980s, the United States was the dominant global supplier of commercial nuclear energy technology.
American leadership was instrumental in shaping the global nuclear nonproliferation regime and
nuclear safety norms. A strong domestic nuclear program and Projected Installed Global Nuclear
supportive government policies helped sustain this dominant position. Today, the United States
continues to exercise Influence by virtue of its economic power and recognized expertise in facility
operations, safety, and security. But our nation's ability to promote nonproliferation and other national
security objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation has diminished. An important source of U.S.
leverage in the past was the ability to provide reliable nuclear technologies, fuel, and services to
countries under strict nonproliferation controls and conditions. These controls and conditions go
beyond provisions in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferatlon of Nuclear Weapons and include nine criteria
that the United States applies to any agreement with a nonnuclear weapon state: for example, a
guarantee that the recipient state will not enrich or reprocess transferred nuclear material without U.S.
approval. Installed Capacity (Gwe) Data from World Wiclrar Today, much of the world's nuclear
manufacturing and supply capability still relies on designs and technologies developed in the United
States. But the firms involved are largely foreign- owned. Even in the market for conventional lightwater reactors, where the United States led the world for decades, all but one of the U.S.-based
designers and manufacturers have been acquired by non-U.S.-based competitors. The
countries that are currently strengthening their nuclear capabilities and global
market position (i.e.. France. Japan. South Korea, and Russia, with China close
behind) have different reasons for pursuing nuclear technologysome are primarily
concerned about energy security or about preserving domestic fossil fuel resources,
while others may be motivated by a mix of nationalistic and geopolitical
considerations. But in all cases they see nuclear technology as offering long-term
benefits that Justify a significant near-term sovereign investment, even faced with
the prospect that world natural gas prices may fall if the unconventional gas
production technologies in use In the United States are successfully applied in other
parts of the world. The most aggressive of these new national nuclear programs is
underway in China. By 2020. China could have 50 commercial reactors in operation,
compared with only 3 in 2000. India could add 7 new plantsand Russia in the next
five years. These trends are expected to accelerate out to 2030. by which time
China. India, and Russia could account for nearly 40 percent of global nuclear
generating capacity. Meanwhile, many smaller nationsmostly in Asia and the
Middle Eastare planning to get into the nuclear energy business for the first time.
In all. as many as 15 new nations could have nuclear generating capacity within the
next two decades, added to the more than 30 countries that have it today or have
had it in the past. The national security concern is that much of this new interest in
nuclear power is coming from countries and regions that may not share America's
interests and priorities In the areas of nonproliferation and global security. And our
leverage to influence their nuclear programs will be weak at best if U.S. companies
cannot offer the technologies, services, and expertise these countries need to
operate a successful nuclear program (including not only reactors, but other fuel-cycle
facilities). Expanded nuclear electricity generation outside the United States will drive a
commensurate increase in the demand for enriched uranium. The facilities needed to supply
this demand because they can be used 10 produce both nuclear fuel and nuclear
weapons-usable materialare of particular national security concern. During the 1960s, the
U.S. operated the only uranium enrichment facility wholly dedicated to producing lowenriched uranium (LEU) for commercial purposes. Today, the single U.S.-based enrichment
company. USEC accounts for less than 20 percent of global LEU production capacity. USEC recently
announced the shutdown of uranium enrichment at its only operating plant in Paducah. Kentucky,
which was viewed as being outdated and too inefficient to be competitive with foreign suppliers. In
fact, much of the fuel used in U.S. reactors today is fabricated from imported enriched uranium
obtained by USEC under a very successful agreement with the Russian government to supply downblended highly enriched uranium, a contract that expires in 2013. Although USEC plans to replace the
aging Paducah plant with a more advanced facility, prospects for following through on this plan are
modernize its enrichment services capability. All told, the U.S. share of global exports for
enriched uranium and other sensitive nuclear materials declined from approximately 29
percent in 1994 to 10 percent in 2008. A healthy domestic nuclear infrastructure also
serves our national security interests by supporting the nuclear propulsion program
of the U.S. Navy, which operates a fleet of 83 nuclear- powered submarines and
aircraft carriers. While the Navy is careful to develop sources of supply that can
weather short-term ups and downs in the commercial industry, a sustained
decline in the commercial industry could have a direct and negative
econ
ECON: Nuclear energy market would solve the economy
Kirk 14 Ambassador Ron Kirk is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a
nuclear energy industry group. He previously served as U.S. Trade Representative
and mayor of Dallas (May 8, 2014, Ron, USA Today, Expanding our share of the
international energy market will create jobs and help the environment,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/08/china-economy-pollutiongreenhouse-gases-column/8580749/)
The economic benefits of nuclear energy exports are enormous. Already,

Westinghouse has four of its advanced reactors under construction in China. Those
four reactors alone support more than 15,000 high-paying jobs here in the United
States - and there is room to grow. Over the course of the next decade, the
international nuclear energy market is expected to be worth $500 billion to $750
billion. If the United States can capture even a fraction of that market, we have the
potential to create tens of thousands of jobs. Companies involved in the nuclear
energy supply chain already support tens of thousands of additional American jobs
jobs we can help sustain and secure by expanding our share of the international
nuclear energy market.
misc
(full card) A strong US nuclear power key to maintain naval

dominance and prevent prolif
df)
with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial presence in
new nuclear markets. America's ability to Influence nonproliferation policies and
nuclear safety behaviors worldwide is bound to diminish. In this context, federal
action to reverse the U.S. nuclear industry's impending decline is a national security
imperative. The United States cannot afford to become irrelevant in a new nuclear
age. This brief outlines why. MAKING THE CONNECTION: HOW A STRONG CIVIL
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SUPPORTS U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES From the start
of the nuclear era until the 1980s, the United States was the dominant global
supplier of commercial nuclear energy technology. American leadership was

instrumental in shaping the global nuclear nonproliferation regime and nuclear
safety norms. A strong domestic nuclear program and Projected Installed Global
Nuclear supportive government policies helped sustain this dominant position.
Today, the United States continues to exercise Influence by virtue of its economic
power and recognized expertise in facility operations, safety, and security. But our
nation's ability to promote nonproliferation and other national security objectives
through peaceful nuclear cooperation has diminished. An important source of U.S.
leverage in the past was the ability to provide reliable nuclear technologies, fuel,
and services to countries under strict nonproliferation controls and conditions.
These controls and conditions go beyond provisions in the Treaty on the NonProliferatlon of Nuclear Weapons and include nine criteria that the United States
applies to any agreement with a nonnuclear weapon state: for example, a
guarantee that the recipient state will not enrich or reprocess transferred nuclear
material without U.S. approval. Installed Capacity (Gwe) Data from World Wiclrar
Today, much of the world's nuclear manufacturing and supply capability still relies
on designs and technologies developed in the United States. But the firms involved
are largely foreign- owned. Even in the market for conventional lightwater
reactors, where the United States led the world for decades, all but one of the U.S.based designers and manufacturers have been acquired by non-U.S.-based
competitors. The countries that are currently strengthening their nuclear
capabilities and global market position (i.e.. France. Japan. South Korea, and Russia,
with China close behind) have different reasons for pursuing nuclear technology
some are primarily concerned about energy security or about preserving domestic
fossil fuel resources, while others may be motivated by a mix of nationalistic and
geopolitical considerations. But in all cases they see nuclear technology as offering
long-term benefits that Justify a significant near-term sovereign investment, even
faced with the prospect that world natural gas prices may fall if the unconventional
gas production technologies in use In the United States are successfully applied in
other parts of the world. The most aggressive of these new national nuclear
programs is underway in China. By 2020. China could have 50 commercial reactors
in operation, compared with only 3 in 2000. India could add 7 new plantsand
Russia in the next five years. These trends are expected to accelerate out to 2030.
by which time China. India, and Russia could account for nearly 40 percent of global
nuclear generating capacity. Meanwhile, many smaller nationsmostly in Asia and
the Middle Eastare planning to get into the nuclear energy business for the first
time. In all. as many as 15 new nations could have nuclear generating capacity
within the next two decades, added to the more than 30 countries that have it
today or have had it in the past. The national security concern is that much of this
new interest in nuclear power is coming from countries and regions that may not
share America's interests and priorities In the areas of nonproliferation and global
security. And our leverage to influence their nuclear programs will be weak at best if
U.S. companies cannot offer the technologies, services, and expertise these
countries need to operate a successful nuclear program (including not only reactors,
but other fuel-cycle facilities). Expanded nuclear electricity generation outside the
United States will drive a commensurate increase in the demand for enriched
uranium. The facilities needed to supply this demand because they can be used
10 produce both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons-usable materialare of

particular national security concern. During the 1960s, the U.S. operated the only
uranium enrichment facility wholly dedicated to producing low-enriched uranium
(LEU) for commercial purposes. Today, the single U.S.-based enrichment company.
USEC accounts for less than 20 percent of global LEU production capacity. USEC
recently announced the shutdown of uranium enrichment at its only operating plant
in Paducah. Kentucky, which was viewed as being outdated and too inefficient to be
competitive with foreign suppliers. In fact, much of the fuel used in U.S. reactors
today is fabricated from imported enriched uranium obtained by USEC under a very
successful agreement with the Russian government to supply down-blended highly
enriched uranium, a contract that expires in 2013. Although USEC plans to replace
the aging Paducah plant with a more advanced facility, prospects for following
through on this plan are far from certain. Meanwhile, the European uranium
enrichment company (Urenco) is expanding its market share worldwide with several
new facilities planned or under construction in Europe and the United States. In
addition. Russia is taking steps to modernize its enrichment services capability. All
told, the U.S. share of global exports for enriched uranium and other sensitive
nuclear materials declined from approximately 29 percent in 1994 to 10 percent in
2008. A healthy domestic nuclear infrastructure also serves our national security
interests by supporting the nuclear propulsion program of the U.S. Navy, which
operates a fleet of 83 nuclear- powered submarines and aircraft carriers. While the
Navy is careful to develop sources of supply that can weather short-term ups and
downs in the commercial industry, a sustained decline in the commercial
industry could have a direct and negative impact on the naval program.
Finally, the U.S. nuclear industry contributes to energy security at home. Today,
nuclear power plants supply nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs while also
playing a central role in assuring grid reliability in several regions of the county and
avoiding significant air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Yet with uncertainty
about the prospects for new plant construction over the next decade and with
nearly all existing plants scheduled to be shut down by 2050. the share of electricity
generated by nuclear reactors in the United States will decline steadily to near zero
by mid-century. By that time, the United States could be host to as little as 2
percent of global installed nuclear capacitydown from 25 percent today.
UQ for some RUSSIA DA

df)
RUSSIA In 2012, nuclear energy was used to generate 166.6 billion kWh in Russia
about 18 percent of the country's overall electricity supply. Nuclear electricity
output has grown considerably over the past decade due to improved plant
performance, with capacity factors rising from 56 percent in 1998 to 80 percent in
2012.26 Russia has an installed nuclear capacity of 23.2 GWe, with 32 operational
reactors at 10 locations.27 The Russian government has stated that it intends to
increase nuclear and hydropower generation in the future to allow for greater export
of natural gas; current plans call for a doubling of nuclear outputsuch that nuclear
accounts for up to 25 percent of total generationby 2030.28 At that point, Russia's
installed nuclear capacity would total about 50 GWe.29 All of the new nuclear power
plants being constructed in Russia are based on indigenous technology. Russia has
long been a leader in developing nuclear technology, and Russian- designed
reactors can be found in many nations that were once part of the Soviet Union, as
well as in several Asian countries. Russia continues to aggressively seek export
markets for its reactor designs and nuclear fuel cycle services. This includes plans
to build seven or eight floating nuclear power plants by 2015, based on Russias
extensive experience with designing and building nuclear-powered icebreakers.30
UQ for CHINA DA
df)
Chinawith current capacity only standing at about 13 GWeis blazing ahead with
the world's most aggressive civil nuclear expansion. With 17 reactors currently in
operation, 28 units are being built, including 4 U.S.-designed AP1000 reactors at
Sanmen and Haiyang. In response to Fukushima, Beijing postponed new approvals
until reviews were held on the safety of existing plants and those under
construction. By the summer of 2012, new safety standards for all nuclear facilities
had been approved, giving the green light to plans to add more than 70 GWe of new
capacity by the end of this decade. The reactors that have been or are now being
built rely on technology developed in many nations, including the United States,
Russia, France, Japan, Canada, and others. A common theme across the wide
variety of construction contracts signed by Chinese electricity providers has been
the inclusion of aggressive requirements related to technology transfer. For
example, Westinghouse has agreed to transfer technology to China's State Nuclear
Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) over the first four AP1000 units so that
SNPTC can build subsequent units of this type on its own. In this way, China intends
to transition from its current status as a nuclear technology importer to that of
nuclear technology exporter over the next two decades. Our analysis projects that
China's demand for uranium and uranium enrichment services will grow nearly
tenfold by 2030 (see figure below). Consequently, Beijing is pursuing an ambitious
plan to lock up foreign uranium suppliesas it has done with other strategic
minerals and resources. China will also increase its own production of uranium in
Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang.
Net benefit cards
**TRADEOFF:
NATGAS
Natural Gas displaces nuclear power, Exelon proves
-
Its a 55 billion dollar company, not small either
McMahon 13 (Jeff McMahon, 6/16, 2013, Forbes.com, How Fracking Killed

Nuclear Power, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/06/16/fracking-notwind-killed-exelons-nuclear-upgrades/)
Cheap Gas Spurred Exelon To Cancel Nuclear Upgrades, Exec Says Cheap
natural gas has not only made new nuclear plants unfeasible, an Exelon
executive said in Chicago Thursday, but has undermined Exelons plans to upgrade
its existing fleet. Five years ago the U.S. faced a shortage of natural gas, and with
the prospect of a cap on carbon emissions, the worlds largest nuclear utility
expected nuclear power to flourish. Nuclear generation was looking phenomenal,
Andy Swaminathan, a senior vice president for portfolio strategy at Consellationan
Exelon companytold about 150 people gathered Thursday at a Chicago Council on
Global Affairs forum on shale gas. Exelons stock price was $90. Unfortunately its
about a third of that today. Its directly related to the fact that gas has gone from
$10 and $12 an MMBtu to approximately $4 to $5 an MMBtu in the visible trading
horizon. When the shale gas boom began around 2009, fueled by the proliferation
of lateral drilling and hydraulic fracturing of deep shale deposits, Exelon put plans
for new nuclear plants on hold and turned to a less-costly strategy of upgrading
existing plants. In the last decade, Swaminathan said, Exelon has been able to
create the equivalent of a new nuclear plant by increasing production at its existing
20 plants. But now, Swaminathan said, even upgrades look too costly compared to
power generation from cheap natural gas. We completely abandoned new nuclear
generation in the emergent generation perspective . We said you know what, well
go to upgrades At this point even those look very challenging. Exelon has
shelved plans to upgrade its LaSalle plant in Illinois and Limerick plant in
Pennsylvania, Swaminathan confirmed. But Swaminathan placed the blame on
cheap natural gas, while the companys official release pointed the finger at
subsidized wind power:
Perm guts solvency, Natgas will drive future developments

away from nuclear power
Wald 12 (Matthew L. Wald, February 10, 2012, The New York Times, Nuclear
Power vs. Natural Gas, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/natural-gas-vsnuclear-power/)
When critics say nuclear power is risky, they often mean the risk of an accident. But
people in the nuclear industry say that the bigger threat is natural gas. To look like a
smart move, the $14 billion nuclear project undertaken by the Southern Company
and its partners must meet several challenges, including actually completing the job
for that figure, always a question in nuclear construction. But for the 104 nuclear
reactors now running in this country, and for many of the ones that have retired,
the big issue has always been the price of electricity from competing
sources. And generally, that comes down to a prediction about the future
cost of natural gas, which usually sets the price of electricity on the grid in
much of the United States. The nuclear industry must also reckon with the prospect
that in the 2020s or 2030s, that the United States will get more serious about
limiting carbon dioxide emissions, which would be a plus for nuclear operators.
Substituting gas for coal does reduce emissions, but there is still far too much
carbon in natural gas to allow its widespread use if the electric system is to reduce
its emissions by 80 percent by 2050. That was the national goal endorsed by
President Obama when he ran for president in 2008. In fact, some electricity experts
say that if the economy as a whole has to cut emissions by 80 percent, the electric
sector will have shoulder even deeper reductions, given that other areas, like
transportation, can probably manage less. If companies that burn gas had to pay a
tax for the carbon dioxide produced, that would be as good for Vogtle 3 & 4, the two
new reactors Southern is to build near Augusta, Ga., as an increase in the market
price of gas would be. Southern itself has a big investment in gas. In a filing with the
Georgia Public Service Commission, the company said that in 1989, about 7 percent
of its capacity ran on gas, a proportion that has since risen to 37 percent. Without
the two new reactors, it would rise to 49 percent by 2017. The argument that a
utility should diversify its energy mix is most conspicuously invoked these days in
favor of wind power, which also has trouble competing with cheap natural gas right
now but that, unlike gas, carries no risk of a rise in the energy cost. Thomas A.
Fanning, Southerns chairman, told reporters on Thursday that the company was
going to rely on wind, sun, gas, energy efficiency and 21st century coal (meaning
cleaner coal-burning), a diversity he described as all the arrows in the quiver. That
echoes a theme in President Obamas State of the Union address last month, in
which he called for many different kinds of energy production. (Yet he also called for
more natural gas drilling.) Southerns enthusiasm for nuclear exceeds that of almost
every other utility. John W. Rowe, the chairman of Exelon, the nations biggest
nuclear utility, had said that he would not build a new reactor at todays natural gas
prices. Referring to the geologic formations from which natural gas is extracted, he
said in a recent speech, Shale is good for the country, bad for new nuclear
development. There must be a shortage of natural gas and stable high prices to
make the economics right, he said of nuclear power in a speech to a nuclear
group.
RENEWABLES
Perm fails, nuclear and renewables are incompatible-different
grids
Smith and Solo 14 (Grant Smith and Pam Solo, Feburary 2nd, 2014, Bulletin of
the Atomic Sweet Scientists, The renewable energy transition has
begunhttp://thebulletin.org/renewable-energy-transition-has-begun)
As for storage, various technologies are being deployed slowly but still have a much
more promising future than nuclear ever had. Unlike new nuclear designs, these
technologieswhich include ultracapacitors, flywheels, batteries, and compressed
air storagehavent failed. They are being developed quickly. And it appears they
would be better at balancing electrical output on the grid than natural gas-fired
power, a conclusion reached in a study conducted by the California Public Utility
Commission. Nuclear power plants (large or small) and renewables are not
compatible technologies. A distributed grid design with high penetrations of
variable renewables requires flexible technologies for balancing the system. Both
nuclear and coal plants are inflexible. They cannot respond to variability in power
generation quickly enough. And the more money is dumped into nuclear, the less is
available for these more easily deployable and financially less risky options for
storing electricity to use in grid-balancing. It would also cost billions to reinvigorate
the nearly non-existent nuclear supply chain in the United States. Indeed, a
conference about energy project financing in January, Infocasts Projects and Money
2014, was attended by heavy-hitter financial institutions, and no one uttered a word
about nuclear power. The emphasis was on solar photovoltaic and, yes, natural gas,
which is still in the beginning of a boom (although the bust is just around the corner
as greenhouse gas emissions, cost, and water concerns are fully realized). The
conference also showed there is emerging interest in the financing of storage
projects.
Perm fails- market competition

Timeforchange 13 (Time for Change, Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons,
http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-phase-out-pros-and-cons)
Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons Nuclear phase-out means the
discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for electrical energy production. Usually
because of concerns about nuclear energy, existing plants are either shut down or
not renewed after being retired. Many European countries have decided to phaseout nuclear power, for details see further below. Under the umbrella of global
warming, lobbying organizations of the atomic industry are putting high pressure on
several governments to postpone the planned shut down of nuclear power stations
or even to cancel the phase-out altogether. Their main argument is the relatively low
CO2 emission of nuclear power compared to fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas. However
nuclear energy should rather be compared to sustainable energies and not to fossils. The
general pros and cons of nuclear power are discussed on a separate page. Here we
concentrate on the pros and cons of nuclear phase-out. Reasons against a nuclear power
phase-out We do not see any reason for stopping or delaying the phase-out of nuclear
energy. Despite opposite declarations of lobbyists from the atomic industry: Nuclear power is
an expensive, dangerous and non-sustainable technology. There is still no solution in sight
for the treatment of the hazardous waste produced. It is therefore high time to replace
nuclear power and to clear the way for sustainable technologies. Reasons for a nuclear
power phase-out Transformation of the energy system for a sustainable society Survival of
human being on the Earth will in the long and medium term only be possible if we switch to
a sustainable life style . This is only achievable with renewable energies. The nuclear
power phase-out opens a whole window of opportunities for renewable

technologies. In contrast to nuclear energy, alternative technologies have almost no
lobbying organizations. The development of alternative technologies has therefore
mainly been financed by private investors. They have received only very little
subsidies, if any at all. However, industry will only invest in such technologies if
there is a strong demand and large market for them. Nuclear phase-out will create
exactly this market. We cannot on one hand decide to continue nuclear
power to generate electricity and on the other hand expect alternatives to
be developed. It will not work because in this case there would be no interesting
market for alternative technologies. As a consequence alternatives - like sustainable
technologies - would not be developed.
Theyre incompatible- cost and conflicting grids, Germany

proves
Energymatters 11 (March 21, 2011, Energy Matters, Nuclear Power And
Renewable Energy Not Compatible, http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?
main_page=news_article&article_id=1404)
Nuclear Power And Renewable Energy Not Compatible . Heinrich-Bll-Stiftung, a nonprofit think-tank affiliated with the German Green Party, says the view of
nuclear and energy efficiency plus renewable energy co-existing 'clearly mutually
exclude each other" for a number of reasons. On the cost issue, the study
carried out for the group points out competition for taxpayer dollars has
seen renewable energy miss out on much needed funding required to
improve on existing technology. In Germany alone, a country seen as a
solar power stronghold, the nuclear sector has received approximately
100 billion Euros in public subsidies to date - and the funding is
continuing. Drawing on data from a Renewable Energy Policy Project study
carried out in 2000, the Heinrich-Bll-Stiftung report says in their first 15
years, nuclear and wind electricity production in the USA produced a
similar level of energy, but the subsidy to nuclear outweighed that of wind by a
factor of over 40 - $39.4 billion to $900 million. Additionally, the nuclear sector
continues to receive substantial subsidies through the lack of
incorporating environmental costs into electricity prices, such as the
ongoing cost of needing to safely store nuclear power station waste for
possibly thousands of years. Government financial guarantees for thirdparty liability insurance also add to the taxpayer burden and at the
expense of clean, safe power generation technologies. The liability insurance
subsidies alone are enough to make solar power cheaper than nuclear energy
generated electricity according to a study from Queen's University in Canada. On
the energy efficiency front, the Heinrich-Bll-Stiftung report states
centralized, large, power-generation units lead to structural overcapacities, killing
energy efficiency incentives. Increasing levels of renewable electricity
sources will need medium baseload facilities, not large nuclear power
plants. The report also says investor cash should also be spent on the
options that provide the most substantial emission reductions the fastest.
Nuclear power is not only one of the most expensive but also the slowest
option, with reactors taking many years to build. A solar farm can be
constructed in a matter of months once approval has been given.
Currently, there are 436 nuclear electricity generation facilities in
operation globally, but in the next 15 to 20 years more ageing plants will
go offline than new ones coming into operation.
More renewables phases out nuclear power- differing economic

strategies, and Germany proves
Dutzik 11 (Tony, 6/28/2011, Nukes and Renewables Don't Mix, Frontier Group,
http://www.frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/nukes-and-renewables-dont-mix)
Last month, the German government committed to phasing out its existing nuclear
power plants which currently provide 23 percent of the nations electricity by
2022, joining several nations, including Japan, in limiting its reliance on
nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Critics on both sides
of the pond (including our old friends at the Breakthrough Institute)
immediately assailed the move as likely to result in an increase in carbon
dioxide emissions. In the short term, they may have a point: Germany is
accelerating the construction of several fossil fuel-fired power plants to
pick up the slack in the meantime, which will result in increased emissions
(though Germany is also part of the European Unions emission trading
scheme, meaning that those increases will have to be made up for with
emission cuts elsewhere in the continent). But in the longer view,
Germany is making a smart move. It is recognizing that when it comes to
designing its energy systems for a low-carbon world, it faces an either-or
choice: either commit to a future electricity system built on a foundation
of safe, distributed renewable energy, or commit to a centralized power
system built on a foundation of costly, risky nuclear plants. Baseload power
plants such as nuclear plants and intermittent renewables such as wind power
occupy the same biological niche in the power system they are resources
with low operating costs that the electric system will always take
whenever they are needed. Once you get to a certain level of renewable energy
or baseload penetration, you will eventually arrive at situations when you
dont need both resources. And since nuclear power plants cannot be
powered down in response to short-term fluctuations in demand, guess which
resources are likely to get the boot? The notion that nukes and renewables
dont mix is supported by this 2010 report from the German Renewable
Energies Agency, which describes in depth why nuclear power plants
become unnecessary (at best) or competitors with renewable energy (at
worst) under a high renewable energy penetration scenario. According to
one study cited in the report, Germany's aggressive renewable energy
development strategy will slice the need for "baseload" power plants in
half by 2020. On some days, no baseload power will be needed at all.
German Federal Minister of the Environment Norbert Rttgen, quoted in the same
report, summed up the dilemma this way: "It is economically nonsensical to
pursue two strategies at the same time, for both a centralized and a
decentralized energy supply system, since both strategies would involve enormous
investment requirements. I am convinced that the investment in renewable
energies is the economically more promising project. But we will have to
make up our minds. We cant go down both paths at the same time."
Politics links (Midterms ONLY)

No link to politics- nuclear is politically dead, wont boost
Obama at all
Cohen 11 Steven Cohen is a policy analyst and executive director of Columbia
Universitys Earth Institute (Steven Cohen, March 21, 2011, Huffington Post, The
Political Demise of Nuclear Power in the U.S., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stevencohen/the-political-demise-of-n_b_838291.html)
While there may be good reasons for nuclear power to be used as a bridge fuel to a
renewable energy future, I am confident that nuclear power is politically dead
in the United States. This makes the research and development of alternative
energy and carbon capture and storage that much more important and urgent. It
also means that environmentalists who have either reluctantly or enthusiastically
embraced nuclear power as a form of carbon free energy should move on to other
solutions. The catastrophe in Japan will not soon be forgotten, and it will shape the
politics of nuclear power plant siting for decades. This analysis is based on a few
fundamental facts of American political structure. Despite the strength of our
national government, this remains a federal system of divided power. States retain
sovereignty, and we have a deeply rooted tradition of local control of land use. Our
national elected leaders pay a great deal of attention to geography and to opinion
leaders at the community level. Presidents are elected by an Electoral College, with
members selected by states. Presidents are not elected by a majority vote of the
American public (ask Al Gore about that). Our legislators must pay a great deal of
attention to the parochial interests of their constituents. Take for example the issue
of nuclear waste. Despite billions of federal dollars spent to develop and complete a
nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the Nevada delegation to the
U.S. Congress, especially Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, have effectively vetoed
its operation. The "Not-in-my Backyard" (NIMBY) syndrome is not a passing fad in
American politics; it is a central element of land use politics in communities
throughout this country. While it is true that the definition of a noxious facility varies
from place to place, no one doubts the ability of an American locality to veto a land
use they do not like. In New York City we have an extreme version of NIMBY where
we even have trouble siting big box retailers. Most places are happy to allow WalMart, but even before last week, few communities were interested in hosting a
nuclear power plant. The images of destruction and danger from the nuclear
disaster in Japan will dominate the local politics of nuclear power plant siting for a
generation. The images of earthquake and tsunami damage will be combined with
the nuclear accident and form a single image in the public's mindset about nuclear
power. While I accepted the argument that nuclear power might be necessary and
could be made less risky, I have always been troubled by the extreme toxicity of
nuclear fuel and waste. As a student of organizational management, I tend to
assume "Murphy's Law" when it comes to human beings running complex
organizations or technologies: if it can go wrong it will go wrong. But my view of the
future of U.S. nuclear politics has nothing to do with my personal concerns about
nuclear power. The fundamental problem with nuclear power is that after the recent
events in Japan, no community in the United States will permit a nuclear plant to be
built nearby. Additionally, some of the nuclear power plants already in operation will
be under increasing pressure to close. The strength of anti-nuclear power politics
should not be underestimated. Here in New York, people on Long Island are still
paying off $3.3 billion in debt for a nuclear power plant called Shoreham that, like
the Yucca Mountain repository, was completed but never opened. Governor Andrew
Cuomo has already started to move against re-licensing the nuclear power plant at
Indian Point, located about 30 miles north of New York City.
Nuclear wont make Dems win- Gallup polls show

RenewablesInternational13 citing Gallup polls (April 29, 2013, Renewables
International magazine, Nuclear power very unpopular,
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/nuclear-power-veryunpopular/150/537/62320/)
Recent surveys in the United States and Germany show that renewables remain
very popular and that an overwhelming majority of people oppose nuclear. At the
same time it, surveys show that the political divide is greater in the US over
renewables than it is in Germany. As someone who spends part of his time
defending the German nuclear phaseout against proponents of nuclear in the Anglo
world, I tend to think that support for nuclear is greater than it actually is. But as our
colleagues at Think Progress recently pointed out, a Gallup poll found that only 37
percent of Americans think that "more emphasis" should be placed on nuclear
power in domestic energy production. The difference between Republicans and
Democrats was also quite salient, with 49 percent of the former leaning towards
nuclear compared to only 30 percent of the Democrats. In contrast, 76 percent of
Americans expressed their support for solar power, compared to 71 percent for wind
power. Here, the greatest discrepancy between the two parties was the 24 percent
gap pertaining to wind power (see chart). Recent polls in Germany have focused
less on nuclear (the most recent ones I could find were from 2011) than on support
for the energy transition. But a survey (PDF in German) taken in mid-March on
Environmental Minister Altmaier's proposal (since rejected) to "put the brakes on
power prices" (which everyone essentially took to mean slowing down the energy
transition, and hence renewables) met with great popular resistance, and the
differences between political parties was only slight. While 89 percent of the Greens
believe that "renewables should be consistently expanded ," the figure was 21
percentage points lower for the Christian Democrats, who still came in at 68 percent
in favor of renewables. In contrast, 81 percent of the Social-Democrats said
renewables should continue to grow, a difference of only 13 percentage points
compared to the CDU. Germany currently has five political parties in its Bundestag.
If we take the SPD and CDU to represent the closest equivalent to the Democrats
and Republicans in the US, we see how great the consensus is when it comes to
supporting renewables in Germany. Incidentally, support for nuclear power seems to
be greater in the UK according to this report from January 2012 in the Guardian,
though the level of popular approval seems to be lower in Scotland at only 32
percent. Although the UK is currently discussing building new nuclear plants,
strangely, no poll seems to have been taken recently though you are welcome to
use the comment box below if I missed something. (Craig Morris)
Nuclear is not favored- UK proves

Poortinga et al 13 (Wouter Poortinga, Nick F. Pidgeon, Stuart Capstick, and
Midori Aoyagi, UKERC, Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power and Climate Change in
Britain Two Years after the Fukushima Accident,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:gFVtGEZYNvQJ:www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php%3FfileId
%3D3371+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Attitudes to Different Forms of Electricity Generation There is consistent evidence

that people express a preference for renewable forms of electricity production over
other forms of electricity generation. The current survey also found that renewable
options were regarded more favourably than nuclear power and fossil fuel based
forms of electricity generation. Respondents had the most positive opinions or
impressions of solar power (77% mainly or very favourable), followed by hydroelectric (72%), and wind power (64%). Biomass was by far the least favoured
renewable option (48%) although this might in part reflect the large proportion of
neither favourable nor unfavourable responses obtained (25%) compared to other
renewable sources. Across the options for fossil fuel based electricity generation,
natural gas was the most favoured (59% mainly or very favourable). Across all
forms of electricity generation, nuclear (34%), coal (33%) and oil (34%) were the
least favoured. Figure 1 shows that, while renewables remained the most favoured
form of electricity production, support for them has dropped substantially over the
years. Favourability ratings for wind power in particular have shown a sharp decline,
from 82% in 2005 to 64% in 2013. Favourability ratings of solar power have dropped
from 87% in 2005 to 77% in 2013. Gas is the only form of electricity production that
is now perceived more favourably (59%) than in 2005 (56%). Attitudes to Nuclear
Power Generic Unconditional Attitudes to Nuclear Power The survey included a
range of items to assess how the general public thinks about nuclear power. About
the same number of people generally supported (32%) or opposed (29%) nuclear
power in 2013, where no additional context was given for the rationale for its use.
Overall support for nuclear power has increased by about six percentage points
since 2005, while opposition has decreased by about eight percentage points since
2005 (see Table 2). The number of people reporting being ambivalent about nuclear
power (i.e. being unsure whether to express support or opposition) dropped from
32% in 2005 to 27% in 2013. However, the number of respondents choosing the
other, none of these and dont know options increased substantially from 1% to
9% over the same period.

Nuclear

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear CP

This card is dope, legit scientists

Bryce 13 Bryce is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, he cites: James

1982, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. As for non-hydro

And, nuclear power key to solving global warming

the development of new technologies to increase energy efficiency and to

Nuclear Power is Carbon-free,

The U.S. should

Only nuclear solves, renewables will never replace increasing

This card is dope, legit scientists

Bryce 13 Bryce is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, he cites: James

Snow and Hannam 14

The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless

average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they

EXPANDED PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR COOPERATION

UQ- Nuclear restricted now, especially by US

. As a consequence of the anti-nuclear hysteria in Beckmanns time, the U.S.

UQ- Nuclear power faltering, more development vital to

*Nuclear meets demand

fraction of a power plants production capacity that is actually generated) for

AT: Nuclear hurts environment

Wont damage environment as much as other energy sources

AT: prolif/ terror

(AT: Terrorism)Power plants are impregnable

Completely safe, no terrorism

No link to prolif: Nuclear reactors help reduce nuclear weapons

No nukes can be made from power plants

Nuclear not unique to prolif, countries wouldnt risk political

plutonium beyond capacity of terrorists

Although power-reactor plutonium can theoretically be used to make nuclear

Turn: nuclear power decreases cancer

AT Fukushima (environmental disaster)

**AT: Plan solves better

a million times more efficient,

Nukes > Renewables

conservation efforts and nonhydro renewables have benefitted from a cumulative

HYDRO, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, biomass stink

tons of investments already, plan non-U

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESTORING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN NUCLEAR ENERGY: A

The NPT is weak now, strengthening it is key to prevent

101: How relevant is cold war treaty in age of terrorism,

Any effort by the international community to combat nuclear terrorism should be

The NPT is weak now, means nuclear terror risk is high

NPT is key to prevent terror; decreases number of unsecure

NPT prevents prolif

Bio/ Chem terror solvency

Terror good bad

Hege doesnt solve, only CP

Impact already solved: 56/24 T, IAEA strengthening, and the

AT: state terror

No prolif, countries wouldnt risk political risk

plutonium beyond capacity of terrorists

Although power-reactor plutonium can theoretically be used to make nuclear

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESTORING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN NUCLEAR ENERGY: A

CONNECTION: HOW A STRONG CIVIL NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SUPPORTS U.S. NATIONAL

Independent internal link: Nuclear reactors help reduce

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESTORING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN NUCLEAR ENERGY: A

disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive export

designers and manufacturers have been acquired by non-U.S.-based competitors. The

The economic benefits of nuclear energy exports are enormous. Already,

(full card) A strong US nuclear power key to maintain naval

supplier of commercial nuclear energy technology. American leadership was

10 produce both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons-usable materialare of

UQ for some RUSSIA DA