Solar Power Aff - Maurer

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Solar Power Aff
Index – Federal Land Solar Aff

Index – Federal Land Solar Aff.......................................................................................................................................1
1AC – Inherency.............................................................................................................................................................5
1AC Inherency................................................................................................................................................................6
1AC Inherency................................................................................................................................................................7
1AC – Plan......................................................................................................................................................................8
1AC – Economy Advantage............................................................................................................................................9
1AC – Economy Advantage..........................................................................................................................................10
1AC – Pollution Advantage..........................................................................................................................................14
1AC – Solvency............................................................................................................................................................15
1AC – Solvency............................................................................................................................................................16
1AC – Solvency............................................................................................................................................................17
Inherency – No Fed Solar Now.....................................................................................................................................18
Inherency – Solar not competitive now........................................................................................................................19
Inherency – CSP not cost-efficient yet..........................................................................................................................20
Inherency – FF Increasing Now....................................................................................................................................21
Inherency – FF Increasing Now....................................................................................................................................22
Solvency – Alternate Mech...........................................................................................................................................23
Solvency – Incentives...................................................................................................................................................28
Solvency – Incentives...................................................................................................................................................29
Solvency – Wind Trade-0ff...........................................................................................................................................30
Solvency – Tech Ready.................................................................................................................................................31
Solvency – Energy Grid................................................................................................................................................32
Solvency – Federal Action Key....................................................................................................................................33
Solvency – Now Key....................................................................................................................................................37
Solvency – Fast Time Frame.........................................................................................................................................38
Solvency – Energy Prices..............................................................................................................................................39
Solvency – Environmental Impact Statement key........................................................................................................42
Solvency – Natural Gas.................................................................................................................................................43
Solvency – AT: Not Cost Competitive..........................................................................................................................48
Solvency – Base Energy Load......................................................................................................................................51
Solvency – Peak Energy Load......................................................................................................................................52
Solvency – Economies of Scale....................................................................................................................................53
Solvency – Plenty of Land............................................................................................................................................54
Solvency – Generic.......................................................................................................................................................55
Solvency – AT: No Transmission Lines........................................................................................................................58
Solvency – AT: Intermittency .......................................................................................................................................59
Solvency – AT: Species DA..........................................................................................................................................60
Solvency – AT: Consistency Issues/SIlicon..................................................................................................................61
Solvency – AT: Transmission Problems........................................................................................................................62
Solvency – AT: High Energy Prices=Conservation......................................................................................................63
CSP Good – Generic.....................................................................................................................................................64
CSP Good – O/W PVs..................................................................................................................................................65
CSP Good – O/W PVs..................................................................................................................................................66
CSP Good – O/W PVs..................................................................................................................................................67
CSP Good – O/W Wind................................................................................................................................................68
CSP Good – No Silicon.................................................................................................................................................69
CSP Good – Grid Issues................................................................................................................................................70
CSP Good – O/W PVs..................................................................................................................................................71
CSP Good – Ecosystems...............................................................................................................................................72
CSP Good – Ecosystems/Waste....................................................................................................................................73
CSP Good – Decreases Energy Prices..........................................................................................................................74
CSP Good – Decreases Energy Prices..........................................................................................................................75
CSP Good – Tr/off with PV..........................................................................................................................................76
CSP Good – Modeling..................................................................................................................................................77
CSP Good – solves warming.........................................................................................................................................78
PV Good – Grid Issues..................................................................................................................................................79
PV Good – Metro Areas................................................................................................................................................80
PV Good – Generic.......................................................................................................................................................81
PV Good – Generic.......................................................................................................................................................82
PV Good – Environment...............................................................................................................................................83
PV Good – Cost............................................................................................................................................................84
PV Bad – Cannot Lead Solar Industry..........................................................................................................................85
PV Bad – Environment.................................................................................................................................................86
PV Bad – Environment.................................................................................................................................................87
PV Bad – Cost Efficiency.............................................................................................................................................88
Econ Adv – SQ = PV driven growth.............................................................................................................................89
Econ Adv – Econ Collapse Now...................................................................................................................................90
Econ Adv – Econ Collapse Now...................................................................................................................................91
Econ Adv – Investor Confidence Low Now.................................................................................................................92
Econ Adv – Blackouts Now..........................................................................................................................................95
Econ Adv – Blackouts Now..........................................................................................................................................96
Econ Adv – Blackout Impacts – Nuke Reactors go Boom...........................................................................................97
Econ Adv – US behind now........................................................................................................................................100
Econ Adv – Solar Demand High.................................................................................................................................105
Econ Adv – Solar Market Increasing..........................................................................................................................109
Econ Adv – Wind Increasing Now – RPS...................................................................................................................110
Econ Adv- Wind Intermittent .....................................................................................................................................111
Econ Adv – Wind = FF use.........................................................................................................................................112
Econ Adv – Blackouts Econ Internal..........................................................................................................................113
Econ Adv – Blackouts Econ Internal..........................................................................................................................114
Econ Adv – Hi-Tech Jobs Econ Internal.....................................................................................................................115
Econ Adv – Competitiveness Internal.........................................................................................................................117
Econ Adv – Jobs Internal............................................................................................................................................120
Econ Adv – Modeling Internal....................................................................................................................................123
Econ Adv – CSP Solves Price Shocks........................................................................................................................124
Econ Adv – Solar industry K to Econ.........................................................................................................................125
Econ Adv – Plan Key to Solar Industry......................................................................................................................126
Econ Adv – Plan Key to Econ.....................................................................................................................................127
Econ Adv – Plan Key to Econ.....................................................................................................................................128
Econ Adv – Impact......................................................................................................................................................129
Pollution – FF = SO2..................................................................................................................................................130
Pollution – Fish Impacts.............................................................................................................................................131
Pollution – Birds Impacts............................................................................................................................................132
Pollution – Ecosystem Impacts...................................................................................................................................133
Pollution – Ecosystem Impacts...................................................................................................................................134
Pollution – Ag Impacts................................................................................................................................................135
Pollution – SO2 = Acid Rain.......................................................................................................................................136
Pollution – Generic Impacts........................................................................................................................................137
Pollution – Generic Impacts........................................................................................................................................138
Pollution – Solar Solves..............................................................................................................................................139
Pollution – Impacts.....................................................................................................................................................140
Pollution – Impacts.....................................................................................................................................................141
Pollution – Mercury Internals.....................................................................................................................................142
Pollution – Mercury Impacts.......................................................................................................................................143
Pollution – Ozone Impacts..........................................................................................................................................144
Add-on – Natural Gas Bad..........................................................................................................................................147
Add-on – Space...........................................................................................................................................................153
Add-on – Space...........................................................................................................................................................154
Add-on – Oil Dependency..........................................................................................................................................156
Add-on – Oil Dependency..........................................................................................................................................157
AT: States CP – No Jurisdiction..................................................................................................................................158
AT: States CP – No Jurisdiction..................................................................................................................................159
AT: States CP – Indigenous ppl Turn..........................................................................................................................160
AT: States CP – Patchwork Turn.................................................................................................................................163
AT: States CP – Federal Ownership............................................................................................................................164
AT: States CP – State Management Perm...................................................................................................................165
AT: States CP – Coordination Turn.............................................................................................................................166
AT: Federalism DA – State Control = Corporate Control...........................................................................................167
AT: Federalism DA – Non-unique..............................................................................................................................168
AT: Federalism DA – Non-unique..............................................................................................................................169
AT: Federalism DA – No Link....................................................................................................................................170
AT: Nuke Power DA – No Link..................................................................................................................................171
AT: Nuke Power DA – No Link..................................................................................................................................172
AT: Oil DA – No Link.................................................................................................................................................173
AT: Water DA – Link Out...........................................................................................................................................174
AT: Water DA – Impact T/O.......................................................................................................................................179
AT: Silicon DA – Innovations solve Shortages ..........................................................................................................180
AT: Silicon DA – No Link...........................................................................................................................................181
AT: Silicon DA – No Link...........................................................................................................................................182
AT: Silicon DA – AT: Silicon Scarcity........................................................................................................................183
AT: Silicon DA – No Trade-Off .................................................................................................................................184
AT: Silicon DA – No Impact.......................................................................................................................................186
AT: Econ DA – Link turns...........................................................................................................................................187
AT: Econ DA – Link Turns.........................................................................................................................................188
AT: Feed In Tariff CP – Unpopular.............................................................................................................................189
AT: Tax Credit CP – Solvency Turn............................................................................................................................190
AT: Cap K – Solar Solves Poverty..............................................................................................................................191
AT: Ecofem – Generic.................................................................................................................................................192
1AC – Inherency
Observation One is Inherency:
No solar plants on federal land now – The Bureau of Land Management is half-stepping on
contracts for solar plants – this destroys investor confidence in the solar industry
Werner, Associated Press Writer. July 2008. (Erica, the Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/solar-moratorium-scrapped_n_110552.html, accessed July 6, 2008)
BLM has yet to approve a solar project on federal land; the solar projects already built or under way
in this country are on private property. Still, industry officials already impatient about the BLM's pace
worried that putting a stop to new applications would allow other industries to lay claim to federal
land that could go to solar. They feared it would also send the wrong signal to potential investors just
as the solar industry is getting started. "Hitting the brakes before we'd really gotten off the ground was
definitely a scary prospect for the industry," said Katherine Gensler, manager of regulatory and legislative
affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association. BLM Director James Caswell said the agency's action
Wednesday was intended to address such concerns. "By continuing to accept and process new applications
for solar energy projects, we will aggressively help meet growing interest in renewable energy sources, while
ensuring environmental protections," he said in a statement.
Concentrated Solar Power, or CSP, works but needs land area – federal intervention is key
– CSP is the only form of solar that can be cost competitive with fossil fuels
NREL 07 Report to Congress on Assessent of Potential Impact of Concentrating Solar Power for Electricity
Generation February 2007 National Renewable Energy Laboratory http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41233.pdf
The 2000 NRC review found that a major hurdle facing CSP technologies was that they must be
relatively large to be competitive, and that large installations are expensive. Parabolic troughs have
demonstrated performance and reliability over 20 years of operation in California,24 and the technical
feasibility of power tower systems was proven during the mid-1990’s with the 10 MW Solar Two
project.25 Both technologies, however, require scales approaching those of fossil-fueled power plants to
achieve cost competitiveness with conventional means of electricity generation. Just as for new generation
fossil and nuclear plants, such large first-of-a-kind CSP plants are expensive. This led the NRC to
conclude “unless there is a significant market intervention by the Federal and/or State governments, an
economically feasible project in the United States will not be possible.”26 In addition, it would take
several projects to bring the cost down to competitive levels. During a period of restructuring in the utility
sector in the 1990s and into the new millennium, there was little incentive for taking a risk on expensive new
technologies. A 100 MW CSP plant, for example, could cost $300 million. Further, deregulated utilities had
few resources to invest in new technologies. The CSP industry was faced with the conundrum that its
technology was too expensive to be deployed even though deployment could have led to lower cost for
future CSP installations. This is the same challenge faced by many other innovative power plant
technologies as they enter the competitive, commodity-based energy market.
1AC Inherency
Renewable energy shift inevitable – RPS’s at the state level are pushing utilities into wind
power
Chief among the state policies to promote renewables are renewable portfolio standards (RPS’s) which
require that a specific portion of a state’s electricity consumption be met by renewable energy by a certain
year. California’s RPS goal, for example, is 20 percent of total generation from renewable resources by
2010.47 Table 3 lists the requirements of the RPS’s in the six Southwestern States.48 Nevada’s RPS requires
each electricity provider to generate 9 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2007 and 20
percent by 2015. Furthermore, it requires that 5 percent of the electricity obtained from renewable sources in
each year must be acquired from solar energy systems.49 In addition to its RPS, New Mexico has established
a Task Force to assess the feasibility of a CSP project. Recommendations from the Task Force to the
Governor are currently pending.50 It is important to note that unless a state RPS has a carve-out
requirement for solar, utilities will most often pursue the cheapest renewable energy projects, which to
date has been wind energy in most states. However, these policies have led to the establishment of several
CSP projects since 2004. A list of those projects is provided in Appendix A.
1AC Inherency
Empirically- shift to wind will not be adequate protection against grid instability
Dixon 06 Wind Generation's Performance during the July 2006 California Heat Storm 9.8.06 David Dixon,
Nuclear Engineer, US DOE, Oakland Operations
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1332
While wind generation has the benefits outlined above and is enjoying wide success, there has been a
remaining controversy about its availability 24/7. It is virtually a cliché that the wind is fickle; it blows in
different directions and different strengths seemingly at random. As such there has been some concern about
how often will the wind blow and produce electricity, and when electricity is needed will the wind be there?
Everyone has experienced a really hot day when the air is absolutely still, or a really cold, still night. This
concern with the 24/7 availability of wind generation translates to questions about backup capacity to satisfy
peak demand, i.e. the first energy policy imperative - Assurance of Supply. This question may be academic
most of the year when there is adequate back up capacity and even if the wind is still for a while other
electric plants will pick up the slack. But during periods of peak demand, typically in mid-summer or
mid-winter the question is very important. That was certainly the case this July during the record heat
waves in California, then the East Coast and finally the Southern States. Each region in turn experienced
record demand and issued pleas for conservation; commentators expressed concern about blackouts. Under
these conditions, the 24/7 availability of wind generation is not an academic question. Over the last few
years, two schools of thought have developed about wind’s 24/7 availability. The first – ‘this is really not a
problem’. Proponents argue, ‘yes the wind is fickle, but wind turbines are being installed in many, many
windy locations and when one location is still, you may expect others to be gusty. Thus wind will have
excellent 24/7 availability’. Others are concerned, ‘blackouts are very dangerous and simply not
acceptable. Maybe we need to build back-up generation for wind assets and maybe include such
backup in cost calculations, or otherwise significantly discount wind generation when analyzing total
grid capacity vs. peak demand?’ Both schools have their advocates, and to date the controversy is
unresolved. With this understanding of the 24/7 availability controversy in mind, the recent experience of
California is interesting. California has been a pioneer in alternative electricity generation with many decades
of service from significant geothermal and wind facilities. The Alamont Pass area, about 50 miles south east
of San Francisco was the nation’s first significant wind facility. With that start, California today has 2,500
MW of installed wind capacity. That is, these facilities are not being planned or under construction, they are
built and on line. 2,500 MW is a big number; a large nuclear plant is 1,000 MW, a large coal plant is 500 to
800 MW, individual wind turbines are 2 to 20 MW. Most significantly, wind is now approaching 5% of
California’s total electric generating capacity. California’s electric grid planners want 7% to 15% of reserve
capacity between predicted total demand and total generating capacity; as such the 24/7 reliability of their
wind capacity, again 5% of California’s total capacity, is important. So what happened in California during
the mid-July heat storm when that electric grid was put to the test, and California avoided rolling
blackouts amid a Level 1 Emergency in which Californian’s were asked to raise their thermostats to 77
and many manufactures and business voluntarily shutdown? By most people’s analysis, wind’s
performance was disappointing. Specifically during this period of peak demand, statewide wind often
operated at only 5% of capacity, or less. The specific data is plotted in the attached graph. The upper line
shows the peak daily electric demand as recorded by the California Independent System Operator, CASIO,
during the heat storm. Daily peak power usage increased fairly steadily in mid July, reaching its peak on July
24 at 50,270 MW. Wind’s availability during this same period is presented in the lower line. Specifically this
is the percent of the CASIO available wind capacity, 2,500MW, which was actually putting electricity into
the CASIO grid at the time of peak demand on each day plotted. By most measures these numbers are
disappointing. On the day of peak demand, August 24, 2006, wind power produced at 254.6 MW at the
time of peak demand. 254.6 MW represents only 10.2% of wind’s rated capacity of 2,500MW. Another
perspective on the data, over the preceding seven days, August 17 to 23, wind produced at 89.4 to 113.0 MW,
averaging only 99.1 MW at the time of peak demand or just 4% of rated capacity. This data presents wind’s
performance during roughly two week’s of only one heat storm, California’s July ’06 storm. This author
recommends caution in reaching larger conclusions about its significance. However as a minimum the data
suggests that analysis of wind’s performance during periods of peak demand in other grid systems with
different wind sited facilities would be useful. And until other such data is available, this experience implies
caution in assuming a significant fraction of wind capacity will be available for periods of peak
demand such as California’s July level 1 emergency.
1AC – Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should amend Title V of the Federal Land
Policy Management Act and Bureau of Land Management right of way regulations to
replace the “fair market value” standard for rental rates of public lands for concentrated
solar power plants. The rental rate for concentrated solar power plants should be set at the
same rate as livestock grazing. We’ll clarify.
1AC – Economy Advantage

The economy is collapsing now – rising energy prices, high oil prices, and lack of investor
confidence are devastating the US stock market – global economic collapse is coming
because of the interconnectedness of markets
Faiola and Irwin 7-16-08
(Anthony and Neil, “An Economy Thrown Into Turmoil: U.S. Financial Crisis Increasingly Infecting The Rest of the
World”, Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, July 16, 2008; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071500999.html?hpid=topnews)
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, testifying before Congress, painted a picture of a U.S.
economy being squeezed from all directions. He cited the "numerous difficulties" that the central bank --
and all Americans -- are grappling with: "ongoing strains in financial markets; declining house prices; a
softening labor market; and rising prices of oil, food and some other commodities."
Less than a month ago, the Fed had indicated that rising inflation was starting to become a bigger concern
than the slumping economy. Since then, the stock market has fallen sharply and broader problems have
emerged in financial markets, and there have been new signs of slowing global growth. That led
Bernanke, in his semi-annual report to Congress on the economy, to emphasize the risks of high inflation and
a weak economy in equal measure.
"The possibility of higher energy prices, tighter credit conditions and a still-deeper contraction in
housing markets all represent significant downside risks to the outlook for growth," Bernanke told the
Senate Banking Committee. "At the same time, upside risks to the inflation outlook have intensified lately as
the rising prices of energy and some other commodities have led to a sharp pickup in inflation and some
measures of inflation expectations have moved higher."
The plan solves jump starts the economy 4 ways:
ONE:
Investor Confidence,
Plan spurs an economic boom by invigorating alt-energy stocks – venture capitalists see
solar as the new internet stock – they perceive peak oil, rising energy prices, and impending
carbon taxes and want alternatives – they’ll look to solar and wind now – spurring
investment leads to an economic boom
Economist 2008 (“The power and the glory,” June 21, accessed on July 14, 2008
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565685)
The next technology boom may well be based on alternative energy, says Geoffrey Carr. But which sort to
back ?EVERYONE loves a booming market, and most booms happen on the back of technological change. The
world?s venture capitalists, having fed on the computing boom of the 1980s, the internet boom of the 1990s and the biotech and
nanotech boomlets of the early 2000s, are now looking around for the next one. They think they have found it: energy.
Many past booms have been energy-fed: coal-fired steam power, oil-fired internal-combustion engines, the rise of
electricity, even the mass tourism of the jet era. But the past few decades have been quiet on that front. Coal has been cheap.
Natural gas has been cheap. The 1970s aside, oil has been cheap. The one real novelty, nuclear power, went
spectacularly off the rails. The pressure to innovate has been minimal. In the space of a couple of years, all that has
changed. Oil is no longer cheap; indeed, it has never been more expensive. Moreover, there is growing
concern that the supply of oil may soon peak as consumption continues to grow, known supplies run
out and new reserves become harder to find. The idea of growing what you put in the tank of your car, rather than sucking
it out of a hole in the ground, no longer looks like economic madness. Nor does the idea of throwing away the tank and plugging your
car into an electric socket instead. Much of the world?s oil is in the hands of governments who have little
sympathy with the rich West. When a former head of America?s Central Intelligence Agency allies himself
with tree-hugging greens that his outfit would once have suspected of subversion, you know something is up. Yet that is one tack
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE….

CONTINUED FROM LAST PAGE….
James Woolsey is trying in order to reduce his country?s dependence on imported oil. The price of natural
gas, too, has risen in sympathy with oil. That is putting up the cost of electricity. Wind- and solar-powered
alternatives no longer look so costly by comparison. It is true that coal remains cheap, and is the favoured fuel for
power stations in industrialising Asia. But the rich world sees things differently. In theory, there is a long queue of coal-fired
power stations waiting to be built in America. But few have been completed in the past 15 years and
many in that queue have been put on hold or withdrawn, for two reasons. First, Americans have become
intolerant of large, polluting industrial plants on their doorsteps. Second, American power companies are
fearful that they will soon have to pay for one particular pollutant, carbon dioxide, as is starting to happen
in other parts of the rich world. Having invested heavily in gas-fired stations, only to find themselves
locked into an increasingly expensive fuel, they do not want to make another mistake. That has opened
up a capacity gap and an opportunity for wind and sunlight. The future price of these resources—zero
—is known. That certainty has economic value as a hedge, even if the capital cost of wind and solar
power stations is, at the moment, higher than that of coal-fired ones. The reasons for the boom, then, are tangled,
and the way they are perceived may change. Global warming, a long-range phenomenon, may not be uppermost in people?s minds
during an economic downturn. High fuel prices may fall as new sources of supply are exploited to fill rising
demand from Asia. Security of supply may improve if hostile governments are replaced by friendly ones and sources become
more diversified. But none of the reasons is likely to go away entirely.
TWO:
Energy Grid,
Rising energy demand makes blackouts inevitable- need new supplies
Ascribe Newswire 08 July 10, 2008 Thursday 8:54 AM PDT Projected California Warming Promises Cycle of
More Heat Waves, Energy Use for Next Century, l/n
"Electricity demand for industrial and home cooling increases near linearly with temperature," said
lead author Miller, a climate scientist and a principal investigator with the Energy Biosciences Institute in
Berkeley. "In the future, widespread climate warming across the western U.S. could further strain the
electricity grid, making brownouts or even rolling blackouts more frequent." When projected future
changes in extreme heat and observed relationships between high temperature and electricity demand for
California are mapped onto current availability, the researchers discovered a potential for electricity deficits
as high as 17 percent during peak electricity demand periods. Climate projections from three atmosphere-
ocean general circulation models were used to assess projected increases in temperature extremes and day-to-
day variability, said Hayhoe. Increases range from approximately twice the present-day number of extreme
heat days for inland California cities such as Sacramento and Fresno, to up to four times the number of
extreme heat days for previously temperate coastal cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego before the end
of the century. This year, California experienced an unusually early heat wave in May and is currently in the
midst of its second major heat wave of the summer, one that has already broken high temperature records for
several more California cities and increased fire and health risks. One hundred and nineteen new daily high
temperature records were set during the May heat wave, including the earliest day in the year in which Death
Valley temperatures reached 120 degrees F (on May 19, beating the old record of May 25 set in 1913). In the
future, the authors say, the state should brace for summers dominated by heat wave conditions such as those
experienced this year. Extreme heat and heat wave events have already triggered major electricity
shortages, most notably in the summer of 2006. Given past events, the results of this study suggest that
future increases in peak electricity demand may challenge current and future electricity supply and
transmission capacities.

Intermittency leads to economic collapse
Smith, 08, MBA, Bachelors and Masters in power engineering, (Powersmiths International Inc, “Training for
Blackouts,” http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2007/may/pesview.html, accessed July 8, 2008).
Blackouts can bring to mind several different images, depending upon your past experiences. For some we are reminded of the lights
going out for a short period of time during a thunderstorm. Others may recall being without heat for several hours or even days
following an ice storm. Still others have been affected by wide-scale outages for no apparent weather-related reason at all. The results of
these blackouts range from inconvenience, to damaged food, lost business, injury, death, and even birth. The cost of a large-scale
blackout is almost impossible to measure. The economic consequences alone can be billions of dollars.
In the United States, we expect our electric power to be 100.00% reliable as so many aspects of our lives depend upon it. Unfortunately,
this is not possible. Blackouts do occur. Our job in the electric power industry is to mitigate the number, frequency, duration, and
area over which blackouts occur. Blackouts occur for a number of reasons. Although most are associated with weather, the impact
can be wide ranging. Weather can blow down a single distribution feeder affecting a small region, or
an ice storm can take out a major portion of a transmission grid affecting millions of people for days.
The pattern continues, producing a large-scale power outage, leaving many consumers in the dark.
Cascading blackouts are unique due to the very wide geographic areas that they affect. Their causes are complex and
unknown for months after they occur, and it usually takes days to restore all of the affected customers. The first largescale blackout, the
Northeast blackout of 1965, and the latest large-scale blackout, the Midwest blackout of August 2003, as well as several in between are
examples of cascading blackouts. Cascading blackouts do not happen very often, perhaps once every ten years or so. Yet the
results are economically devastating, and they do result in the indirect loss of life. Each time such a
blackout occurs, recommendations are made and implemented that will reduce the chance of
reoccurrence, but even so they do reoccur.
Independently, Blackouts risk reactor meltdowns which will kill hundreds of thousands
Vann 03 The US blackout and “homeland security” By Bill Vann 20 August 2003
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/sec-a20.shtml
Nine nuclear power reactors were forced to shut down during the blackout. Had the diesel generators
used to maintain essential operations at any one of these plants failed, a catastrophic nuclear meltdown
would have occurred. Reports submitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission after the blackout
noted that the emergency sirens used to warn of such a meltdown were knocked out at both the Indian
Point and Ginna nuclear plants in New York. Had a meltdown taken place at one of these plants,
hundreds of thousands of people in surrounding communities would have received deadly doses of
radiation without even being aware of what has happening.

THREE:
Energy Prices,
CSP drives down energy prices
TREC-UK, 08 Trec-UK is the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation, a multinational group
of scientists and engineers (http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/no_water.html, accessed 7-9-2008)
In assessing the cost of CSP and comparing it with other sources of electricity, we should take account
of the following things: Electricity from fossil fuels is artificially cheap because: Fossil fuels are still
receiving large subsidies around the world. In 2004, the New Economics Foundation made a conservative
estimate that worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels were about $235bn a year. There appears to have been
little change since then. To a large extent, companies that generate electricity by burning fossil fuels are
still being allowed to use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for CO2. The real price of nuclear
electricity is disguised by many hidden subsidies and is certainly substantially higher than CSP. A
report by the New Economics Foundation, published in 2005, said that a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a
nuclear generator will cost as much as 8.3 pence (16.3 US cents) once realistic construction and running costs
are factored in, compared with about 3 pence (5.9 US cents) claimed by the nuclear industry—and that's
without including costs arising from the wider risks associated with nuclear power such as terrorism, the
danger of proliferation and accidents. CSP can produce substantial benefits in addition to clean
electricity (such as fresh water from the desalination of sea water and horticulture as an associated
industry) and these benefits should be factored in to any cost-benefit analysis of CSP. As the CSP
industry expands, costs will fall because of economies of scale and refinements in the technologies. The
TRANS-CSP report from the German Aerospace Centre calculates that CSP is likely to become one of the
cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmitting it. Taking all these things
into account: It is likely that electricity from CSP is already cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels
and nuclear power, when the environmental costs of those technologies are fully internalised. It is likely
that the costs of those technologies will continue to increase, while the cost of CSP will continue falling.
FOUR:
High tech Jobs,
A Healthy Solar industry creates massive amounts of high-tech labor
Fried 07 (Sustainable Business, 05/16/2007 Rona Fried, Ph.D., Solar Provides Clean Energy, and Also Creates
Jobs, http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1449)
As exciting as the rise of solar energy is in its ability to provide the world with clean electricity, equally as
compelling is the industry's ability to create well paying, life enhancing jobs. Several studies come to
same conclusion: solar - and renewable energy jobs in general - are much more impressive job creators
than the fossil fuel industry, creating 10 times the jobs. A widely quoted University of California (UC)
report concludes we can expect 86,370 new energy jobs in the U.S. by 2020 if we continue with our
current energy mix. But if 20 percent of our energy were to come from renewable sources, then 188,000
to 240,850 jobs could be created, depending on the proportion of wind, solar and biomass energy. The
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that 1.1 million jobs could be created in the
next 10 years through investments in energy efficiency technology.

High tech jobs key to the economy
CyberStates 08 (High-Tech Jobs Slowing But Still Growing, 5/6/08, Accessed 7/14/08,
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/719/72584/HighTechJobsSlowingButStillGrowing.aspx)
The U.S. gained 91,400 high-tech jobs last year, bringing the total to 5.9 million, according to a report by
AeA, a high-tech trade association. This compares to gains of 139,000 in 2006 and 87,400 in 2005. “Tech
jobs make critical contributions to the U.S. economy and pay extremely well,” says Christopher Hansen,
President and CEO of AeA. “The average tech industry wage is 87% higher than the average private-sector
wage.” Software services added 82,600 jobs, up for the fourth year in a row. Engineering and tech services
added 45,800 jobs, also up for the fourth year in a row. On the downside, high-tech manufacturing lost
29,800 jobs last year. Seven of the nine tech-manufacturing sectors lost jobs in 2007. Only the
defenseelectronics and electromedicalequipment sectors showed gains. Communications services continued
to shed jobs, albeit at a slower pace, losing 7,200 compared to a loss of 16,900 in 2006. “The United States
must prepare for a vastly more competitive global marketplace,” continues Hansen. “The tech industry
and the country risk losing competitiveness due to inadequate investment in scientific research, a
failure to improve our education system, and a failure to let the best and brightest from around the
world work in the United States.”
FIVE:
Competitiveness,
Solar key to tech competitiveness which is key to the economy
DOE 08 (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_economy.html - accessed July 9, 2008. DOE = Department of
Energy)
Technological leadership is necessary for economic competitiveness and to make solar electricity a
significant contributor to the nation's economy. Mounting foreign investments have eroded U.S.
market share and have overtaken our R&D lead on the technology front. To secure our future, we must
strengthen and expand our investments. We must take our core R&D and other intellectual resources
and integrate them with U.S. industry's best interests — resulting in sound and well-conceived
programs and sustained investments that clearly support and guide U.S. PV industry leadership
worldwide. Sustained partnerships between the U.S. solar electric industry and national laboratories and
universities are a critical element of this effort.
Finally,
Economic downturn leads to nuclear war
Mead 1992 (Sir Walter Russell, New Perspectives Quarterly, p. 30 Summer)
If so, this new failure – the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of
worldwide depression – will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions – billions – of people around
the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have
embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the West – because they believe our system can work for
them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will
face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India
– these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater
danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
1AC – Pollution Advantage

Air Pollution kills 70,000 per year
American Lung Association 2003, http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-
7F5D5E762256%7D/key_air.pdf, Accessed 7/8/08
The lung’s constant, direct interaction with the environment –the air we breathe – makes
the impact of that environment inescapable. Estimates of the annual human health costs of outdoor air
pollution range from $14 billion to $55 billion annually. Each year, pollution claims 70,000 lives in the
United States. Globally, an estimated 200,000 to 570,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution.
Power plants main source of air pollution

Dr. Arnold Leitner 02, Senior Consultant at RDI Consulting and PhD in Superconductor Physics, July 2002,
Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply, http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf
Sixty-eight percent of western electricity needs are met with fossil fuel generation. In 2001, an estimated
44%, or 482,226 GWh of electricity were generated from coal, and 24%, or 259,604 GWh, were generated
from natural gas or oil. Emissions from coal, natural gas, and oil-fired power plants are the main source
of air pollutants from power plants in the West. Geothermal15 and biomass generation contribute the rest,
but only account for a small amount. In Exhibit 14 we show the projected NOx and SO2 emissions from
western power plants in 2001 and 2010.
CSP solves – it is the most cost-competitive renewable energy and will generate massive
amounts of energy without environmental impact
The Economist 07 Trapping sunlight; solar power, September 15, 2007, ln
Thanks to a confluence of factors—a federal tax credit, an uptick in federal funding for renewable
energy R&D, the enactment of renewable electricity standards in many states and public antipathy
toward greenhouse gas-belching coal-fired power plants—the sun is making a comeback. Concentrating
solar power (CSP) is suddenly looking interesting again. CSP systems capture and focus the sun's rays,
using mirrors, to heat a working fluid to high temperatures and use it to drive a turbine. By contrast,
photovoltaic solar power systems, mostly used on home rooftops, let light interact directly with
semiconductor materials to generate power. As a source of large-scale power CSP is less expensive and
more practical, not least because the technology can deliver power for hours after the sun sets using
thermal storage. America's south-western deserts are an abundant source of sunshine that could meet
the country's power needs several times over without releasing a molecule of carbon dioxide. The first
large CSP plant to be built since the 1980s went online in June in Nevada: it will generate 64 megawatts.
Power companies have already signed long-term agreements with developers such as Stirling Energy
Systems of Phoenix to buy up to 2,300 megawatts of CSP electricity from them. That is paltry compared with
the nation's total electricity capacity of over 1m megawatts: but the Energy Department says at least 7,000
megawatts from CSP plants will be available by 2020. Meanwhile, large international CSP companies, such
as Acciona Energy and Abengoa of Spain, and Solel of Israel, are busily setting up shop in America.
Electricity from the new plant in Nevada costs an estimated 17 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but
projections suggest that CSP power could fall to below ten cents per kWh as the technology improves.
Coal power costs just 2-3 cents per kWh. But that will rise if (as seems likely) regulation eventually
factors in the environmental costs of the carbon coal produces. And CSP purveyors have a powerful
friend: Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate. Mr Reid recently declared that he will
fight to prevent any new coal-fired plants in his state—or even nationwide.
1AC – Solvency
Public lands key to solar power development- investment now key to bringing down costs
making solar competitive and capable of meeting all of US energy needs – environmental
impact is small
Bar-Lev 07 Statement of Joshua Bar-Lev, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, BrightSource Energy VERSIGHT
HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Thursday, April 19, 2007
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/110h/34825.txt
I will come back to SEIA's policy recommendations to the Subcommittee in a moment, but let me start with
an important basic foundation for the U.S. CSP industry--our unique national resource-- plentiful,
flat, non-environmentally sensitive desert land in the West that has high solar insolation, low cloud
cover and is in proximity to gas and electric transmission lines, highways and urban load centers.
This CSP quality land is largely public land managed for multiple uses including energy production by the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM reported that as of April 1, 2007
there are 43 solar applications pending in California, Arizona and Nevada with 34 in California alone. As
recently as the end of 2004, there was no expressed interest in CSP development on BLM public lands.
Enactment of California's renewable portfolio standard and favorable tax policies led to the filing of these
BLM applications--most over the last eight months. In 2003, BLM and the Department of Energy (DOE),
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) issued a GIS-based report, ``Assessing the Potential for
Renewable Energy on Public Lands.'' See http://www.nrel.gov/docs/ fy03osti/33530.pdf. More recently, in
support of the WGA CDEAC initiative, NREL has mapped the best locations for solar energy on public
lands in Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico. The NREL report and GIS maps identify
areas with 1 percent or less of slope with high levels of solar insolation for utility-grade CSP plants. I
have attached the multi-state and California CSP maps prepared by NREL. Ex. 3
(http://www.nrel.gov/csp/maps.html). The NREL study ``filtered out'' unsuitable land that had too
much slope (mountains), was too cloudy, too environmentally sensitive, in or near Wilderness, Parks
or other unsuitable areas. The result will not surprise any of you from the West. The western United
States has some of the best solar radiation areas in the entire world. Conservatively, there is enough
land using today's utility scale technology to generate at least 7000GW of solar energy. This 7000GW
of potential solar energy is about seven times the total United States demand capacity. To give you a
sense of scale, California's peak demand capacity is 60GW. California alone has at least 6000 square miles
of ideal desert terrain for CSP. However, if we limit the development of CSP to high- potential solar areas
that also have proximity to gas and electric transmission lines, we can conservatively estimate that we have
ideal desert land for at least 200GW. How do we bridge the cost gap to get utility scale solar energy to
be competitive with conventional and other renewable fuels? Energy experts believe that a concerted
effort to develop somewhere around 4GW (which represents about 10% of the expected growth in peak
load for the western states) of CSP in the next decade will bring the cost down to competitive levels,
through R&D, economies of scale and learning curve benefits. The WGA study found that development
of as little as 4GW will bring the cost of solar down to fewer than 10 cents a kWh, which is equivalent
to $7 per MMBTU gas. Production of 4GW of CSP energy will have major economic benefits-- one
study by Black and Veatch estimates that 4GW will produce a $22 billion increase in gross state
product, including 13,000 construction jobs, 1,100 permanent jobs and $2 billion in state tax revenues.
And this 4GW will conservatively displace almost 8 million tons of CO2, which is 7% of California's
electric utility output of carbon.
1AC – Solvency
Lowering rents key incentive to attract CSP development on federal lands
Right of way fees charged by BLM for the rental of public lands for CSP projects or for the proposed
CSP solar parks should be at the lowest cost for the use of public lands as an incentive to develop
solar energy, rather than the highest rental cost. Today, Title V of the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1761) and BLM right of way regulations (43 C.F.R. Sec. 2804) require
``fair market value'' for the rental of public land. See also Ex. 1, BLM IM 2007-096 at 2, 4-5. BLM
solar policy currently directs that annual rent for CSP be established by BLM using appraised values
for ``commercial land or industrial land, as of the date of the appraisal.'' Id. at 4. Thus the rental for
CSP is at the highest rental rate for the use of public land--a rate charged for coal-fired power plants
or other industrial facilities. For example, in an existing Boulder City, NV example, the fair market
value for a CSP facility amounts to $25,000 per acre and several millions of dollars per year in rent.
We would ask Congress to direct a specific per acre rental fee for CSP that would be at a dollar
amount to create an incentive for solar energy production from public lands. We would suggest that
the CSP rental for public lands be closer to the assessed value of the land for livestock grazing rather
than the value of the land for industrial facilities.
CSP in the southwest is key – Concentrated solar power solves energy demand at peak and
non-peak times – people run their air conditioners when its hot, which is when CSP
produces the most energy – heat storage solves non-peak demand making CSP the most
cost-efficient form of solar power – plan solves intermittency issues across the grid
Lockwood 08 Testimony of Barbara D. Lockwood, P.E., Manager, Renewable Energy Arizona Public Service
Company Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment “Utility Scale Solar Power: Opportunities and Obstacles” March 17, 2008
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2008/Energy/17mar/Lockwood_Testimony.pdf
One of the most important aspects of Solana is its ability to capture and store solar energy for later use. By
incorporating large insulated tanks filled with molten salt, heat captured during the day can be stored
and used to produce electricity when the sun is no longer shining. The molten salt and heavily insulated
tanks are able to retain heat with very high efficiency, and the stored heat can then be extracted in the
evening or even the following day to create electricity. The stored heat not only increases the total
amount of electricity generated, it also adds specific operating benefits for APS. The ability to use
stored heat on demand, also referred to as "dispatching," allows APS to respond to customer usage
patterns and emergency energy needs more effectively. Most southwest utilities experience their
highest customer demand during the summer months. While the power need is substantial in the
middle of the day, peak energy demand occurs in the late afternoon and into the early evening hours.
Because it can provide energy even after the sun has set, the solar trough with thermal energy storage
provides the maximum value for APS and its customers. Diversification of generation resources is
critical to maintaining a reliable electric system and concentrating solar power provides a significant
opportunity to diversify energy resources. In addition, the costs to construct and maintain
concentrating solar power plants have declined while at the same time equipment and labor costs,
rising fuel prices and emissions concerns are increasing the risks of conventional resources.
1AC – Solvency
Plan creates an essential incubation period that will allow solar power to develop –voting
aff is a shot in the arm to the entire solar industry – empirical solvency for investor
confidence
Even though some solar generating technologies could benefit from research and development, it was
made clear that solar resources are abundant; are located where they are needed; that efficiencies from
concentrating solar power (CSP) are good enough to justify deployment; and cost projections are very
promising. All that solar power required, in the opinion of the experts, is an incubation period, where
incentives are put in place that allow the transition of this emerging generating technology into the
mainstream. It is our view that providing such an incubation period is not a leap of faith, but a proven
recipe of success, as the emergence of wind generating technology in Europe has shown.
Inherency – No Fed Solar Now

Federal government dragging its feet on allowing solar power on federal lands
New York Times 08 U.S. Lifts Moratorium on New Solar Projects, July 3, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/03solar.html?ref=us
Since 2005, the bureau has received more than 130 applications from private companies to build plants
in those states, where large amounts of sun-scorched land make for prime solar real estate. Those
proposals cover more than a million acres and have the potential to power 20 million homes. The bureau
will process all of the applications it received before the freeze, and now, as a result of Wednesday’s decision,
will continue to accept new ones, studying the environmental effects of each proposed plant
individually, Ms. Boddington said. Solar energy advocates, who had lobbied against the freeze at public
meetings that are being held by the bureau throughout the West, were pleased with the decision. “We’re
encouraged that the B.L.M. lifted their moratorium, but we’re only halfway there,” said Rhone Resch,
president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “We now need to get them to expedite the permitting
of the solar projects on public land.” Mr. Resch said the decision was important given that while the
bureau managed to approve a considerable number of oil and gas leases on public land, it “had yet to
lease a single acre of land to the solar industry.”
Inherency – Solar not competitive now

Solar too expensive to attract investment
Elsa Wenzel 08 Associate editor of Cnet, May 9, 2008 PDT Barriers to solar energy's blockbuster promise,
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9939715-54.html
Solar power is recognized as the most expensive form of energy at around 30 cents per kilowatt hour.
By comparison, coal costs about 5 cents and natural gas 4 cents per kilowatt hour. "We're looking for
the biggest bang for the buck," Roy Kuga, vice president of Pacific Gas & Electric's energy supplies
division, said at the event, which was held by UC Berkeley and Stanford University.
Environmental regulations prevent solar development

Elsa Wenzel 08 Associate editor of Cnet, May 9, 2008 PDT Barriers to solar energy's blockbuster promise,
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9939715-54.html
The West Coast, particularly California, is a stronghold for solar support from policymakers. At the same
time, regional missteps are holding back solar development, according to some in the solar industry. The
Clean Energy Initiative on the California ballot this fall would require 50 percent of energy from
renewables by 2050. But as it stands it would effectively kill the state's solar sector by disqualifying any
project under 30 megawatts, warned Sue Kately, executive director of the California Solar Energy
Industries Association. A regulatory fast track should approve the ecological soundness of large-scale solar
plants, said Marc Gottschalk, co-chair in the clean-tech practice of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
Although solar panels don't create obvious hazards or polluting emissions, large installations may be
left in limbo for six months to a year during a review by the California Environmental Quality Act, he
explained. The National Environmental Policy Act can add more delays, said Gottschalk, also co-chair of
the California Clean Tech Open. For instance, OptiSolar plans to build the largest U.S. solar farm of 550
megawatts, but it must ensure the safety of endangered species from nearby Carrizo National Monument.
Connecting the many distributed systems to the grid is still a bridge to cross, some mentioned.
Inherency – CSP not cost-efficient yet

Investment Necessary to Reduce Solar Cost; Capital Markets Can’t Provide
William Weihl 2008, Former CTO of Akamai Technologies, June 2008, Interview from Foundation
for National Progress, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_3_33/ai_n25436901, Date Accessed Jul. 7,
2008
Mother Jones: What kind of clean-energy technology is Google developing in-house?
Bill Weihl: The major focus right now is on solar-thermal technology to generate electricity. We think more
attention could drive the cost of that down substantially to the point where it really could be
competitive with coal. MJ: Google's investment in energy is pretty small given its market cap. Does that mean you don't seethe
same moneymaking potential there as in Internet search? BW: Right now, our major revenue source is our core business. But the
revenue potential in the energy sector probably dwarfs the sector we are in today. MJ: What would it take for renewable energy to go
mainstream? BW: This is where I get worried. If you look at the amount of energy that's needed in 2050 and the amount of
infrastructure that needs to be installed between now and then, it's staggering. I don't see the current capital markets
being in a position to generate the investment needed to make that kind of infrastructure happen. We
need investment in the technology to drive down the cost, and we need a lot more investment.
MJ: What's your favorite personal energy-saving tip? BW: Make sure your computer puts itself to sleep if it's idle for more than 15 or 30
minutes.
Inherency – FF Increasing Now

Demand for energy will increase use of fossil fuels unless government acts
Aslam 2008. (Abid, Inter Press Service, June 25, “U.S. Sees World Use Soaring Despite Rising Costs,”
http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=1502)
World energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions will grow by about 50 percent over the next two
decades despite soaring oil prices as developing countries outpace rich ones in consumption, the U.S.
government predicts. 'World marketed energy consumption is projected to increase by 57 percent
from 2004 to 2030,' the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says in its International Energy
Outlook 2008 report, released Wednesday. Referring to the wealthy nations' Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), it adds that during the same period, 'total energy demand in the non-
OECD countries increases by 95 percent, compared with an increase of 24 percent in the OECD countries.'
The report sees non-OECD countries' share of world energy consumption rising from 47.9 percent in 2005 to
58.8 percent in 2030. Oil and coal -- both regarded as major culprits in global warming because of the
carbon dioxide they spew into the atmosphere when burned -- will continue to dominate global energy
supply, says the U.S. Energy Department's statistical wing. As a consequence, and assuming no new
measures are enacted to curb climate change, the annual amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide
flowing from energy use will have ballooned by 51 percent between 2005 and 2030. 'Global energy
demand grows despite the sustained high world oil prices that are projected to persist over the long
term,' says the report. It sees the price of oil standing at somewhere between 113 dollars a barrel and 186
dollars a barrel. While long-term prices are difficult to predict, it adds, current trends favour the higher
projection of 183 dollars a barrel. Today's price hovers around 137 dollars. Regardless of the rising cost
involved, the EIA says, growth in petroleum use will be driven by the transportation sector and
electricity producers will rely heavily on coal. 'With strong economic growth and continued heavy
reliance on fossil fuels expected, much of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions is projected to occur
among the developing nations of the world, especially in Asia,' says the EIA. It sees demand for oil and
other liquid fuels growing to nearly one-third more than today's consumption, topping 113 million barrels a
day by 2030. Crude oil will retain its 40 percent market share throughout thanks to stepped up production by
members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel.
Inherency – FF Increasing Now
Demand for energy will grow and be met by fossil fuels

BBC News 2007. (November 7, “Energy Needs to Grow Inexorably,”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081679.stm, Accessed 7/8/08)
The global demand for energy is set to grow inexorably through to 2030 if governments do not change
their policies, warns a top energy official. Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the International Energy
Agency (IEA), said such a rise would threaten energy security and accelerate climate change. He said
energy needs in 2030 could be more than 50% above current levels, with fossil fuels still dominant.
"The emergence of new major players in global energy markets means that all countries must take vigorous,
immediate and collective action to curb runaway energy demand," he warned. "Rapid economic
development will undoubtedly continue to drive up energy demand in China and India, and will contribute to
a real improvement in the quality of life for more than two billion people. The World Energy Outlook
2007 report warned that much of the increased demand for energy would be met by coal. As a result,
energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could rise by 57% - from 27 giga-tonnes in 2005 to 42
giga-tonnes in 2030, it said.
Fossil fuel sources will dominate future energy needs

The European Commission 2006 (A branch of the European Union, “A Vision for Zero Emission Fossil
Fuel Power Plants”, http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/nn/nn_pu/article_1078_en.htm)
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), greenhouse gas
emissions — especially CO2 arising from industrial activities — have already made the world warmer. If no
action is taken, there will be a continued increase in global temperatures and, by the end of the century,
global economies and ecosystems will face serious consequences. As the European Commission highlighted
in its Green Paper on a European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy, Europe is
committed to retaining its leadership role in reducing CO2 emissions and thus combating climate change. At
the same time, Europe must maintain economic growth and bolster its competitive position in the global
economy; this presents major challenges but also creates new opportunities. Current scenarios and
projections to 2030 indicate that there will be an increase in worldwide energy demand. While a
portfolio approach to fuel use will be adopted, there is clear evidence that fossil fuel resources — coal,
oil and gas — will continue to dominate. Consequently, unless specific policy initiatives and measures
are undertaken, global CO2 emissions will rise by an unacceptable 60 % before 2030. As stated by the
IPCC, the challenge presented is the reduction of CO2emissions by 50 - 80 % between now and 2050. This
is a demanding target for the European energy sector and its related industries to reach over the coming
decades.
Solvency – Alternate Mech

Liden 06 TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. LIDEN ON BEHALF OF SEIA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE HEARING ON RENEWABLE ENERGY ON
FEDERAL LANDS General Manager of Stirling Energy Systems JULY 11, 2006
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/downloads/11-July-2006-Senate-testimony-of-Robert-B-Liden-on-behalf-of-
SEIA.pdf
How Congress can help encourage the development of renewable resources on Federal lands (beyond
providing funding for additional staffing at BLM field offices):
1. Encourage the land-holding agencies (Department of Interior, Department of Defense, etc.) to establish
“set aside” lands in their resource plans specifically for the development of solar, wind, etc. (NREL has well-
developed maps showing the prime areas for solar and wind development, at least, to assist the agencies in
this effort.) To further encourage the development of renewable energy projects on these lands,
environmental impact studies should be undertaken by the Federal land owners, resulting in the identification
of, for example, solar or wind enterprise zones, where solar or wind developers can more rapidly and
efficiently bring their projects “on line”.
2. Encourage FERC, WAPA, and other Federal power transmission authorities to develop a master plan for
upgrading and expanding the transmission network to facilitate getting the power from Federal lands to the
major load centers and population centers. These upgrades are sorely needed, but they are generally very
expensive. Requiring developers to finance these upgrades (even if the developers are ultimately repaid their
expenses) is onerous, and it generally discourages all but the most deep-pocketed developers from
proceeding with their projects.
3. Establish ground rules for setting lease rates on Federal lands that encourage the use of these lands for
renewable project development and recognize the need for low-cost land to keep the overall cost of
renewable energy as low as possible.
Possible solvency
Bar-Lev 07 INTERCONNECTION ISSUES FACING UTILITY-SCALE SOLAR PROJECTS TECHNICAL
CONFERENCE DECEMBER 11, 2007 PRESENTED BY: JOSHUA BAR-LEV Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
Brightsource Energy http://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20071211083752-Bar-
Lev,%20Brightsource%20Energy.pdf
BLM: Solar power developers need to have access to potential solar power plant sites on federal lands,
reasonable rent for the sites and timely access to transmission. This requires the integration of the BLM/DOE
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process, land use planning under the Federal Land
Policy Management Act, and federal and state laws protecting wildlife, cultural resources and water. All of
these activities impact transmission siting and planning and must be coordinated under EPAct Section 368).
Solvency – Global Warming/FF Dependence

Solar power technology can solve for fossil fuel dependence, natural gas dependence, and
prevent global warming.
Sarah Lozanavoa 08, MBA in Sustainable Management from the Presidio School of Management, Solar Thermal
Electricity: Can It Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil? http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-
replace-coal-gas-and-oil/
One of the most common arguments against large-scale use of renewable energy is that it cannot
produce a steady, reliable stream of energy, day and night. Ausra Inc. does not agree. They believe that
solar thermal technology can supply over 90% of grid power, while reducing carbon emissions. “The
U.S. could nearly eliminate our dependence on coal, oil and gas for electricity and transportation,
drastically slashing global warming pollution without increasing costs for energy,” said David Mills,
chief scientific officer and founder of Ausra. You may be wondering, how will we have electricity at night or
during cloudy weather? Will we use large banks of batteries or burn candles? The ability to utilize solar
thermal technology after the sun sets is made possible by a storage system that is up to 93% efficient,
according to Ausra’s executive vice president John O’Donnell. High efficiency is achieved because solar
thermal plants do not need to convert energy to another form in order to store it and do not rely on
battery technology. Flat moving recflectors or parabolic mirrors focus solar energy to generate heat. This
heat generates steam that turns turbines, thus generating an electric current. If you want to generate
electricity-at, say, 3 am-heat from the sun can be stored for later use. This gives solar thermal technology
the ability to not just produce peak power, but also generate base load electricity.
Solar energy technology is ready to provide 69% of U.S. electricity, significantly reducing
dependence on fossil fuels and natural gas
Zweibel et. al 07 (Ken, James, Vasilis, Zweibel is president of PrimeStar Solar, 12/16/07, “A Solar Grand Plan”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan)
High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at
least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their
demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn
coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants
and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet. Well-meaning scientists,
engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use
and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our
analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer. Solar energy’s potential
is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy
consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles
of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more
than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of
that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006. To convert the
country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar
heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that
energy efficiently across the nation. The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand
plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which
includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to
consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per
kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could
provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.
CSP best way to replace carbon-producing energies

Joseph Romm 2008, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, April 14, “The technology that will save
humanity,” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html)
One of oldest forms of energy used by humans -- sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- is poised to make
an astonishing comeback. I believe it will be the most important form of carbon-free power in the 21st
century. That's because it's the only form of clean electricity that can meet all the demanding
requirements of this century. Certainly we will need many different technologies to stop global warming.
They include electric cars and plug-in hybrids, wind turbines and solar photovoltaics, which use sunlight to
make electricity from solid-state materials like silicon semiconductors. Yet after speaking with energy experts
and seeing countless presentations on all forms of clean power, I believe the one technology closest to being
a silver bullet for global warming is the other solar power: solar thermal electric, which concentrates
the sun's rays to heat a fluid that drives an electric generator. It is the best source of clean energy to
replace coal and sustain economic development. I bet that it will deliver more power every year this
century than coal with carbon capture and storage -- for much less money and with far less environmental
damage. Clearly, the world needs a massive amount of carbon-free electricity by 2050 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions. The industrialized countries need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions from
electricity generation by more than 80 percent in four decades. Developing countries need to find a way to
raise living standards without increasing electricity emissions in the short term, and then reduce those
emissions sharply. And, over the next few decades, the world needs to switch to a ground transportation
system whose primary fuel is clean electricity. This electricity must meet a number of important
criteria. It must be affordable: New electricity generation should cost at most about 10 cents per
kilowatt hour, a price that would probably beat nuclear power and would certainly beat coal with carbon
capture and storage, if the latter even proves practical on a large scale. The electricity cannot be
intermittent and hard to store, as is energy from wind power and solar photovoltaics. We need power
that either stays constant day and night or, even better, matches electricity demand, which typically
rises in the morning, peaks in the late afternoon, and lasts late into the evening. This carbon-free electricity
must provide thousands of gigawatts of power and make use of a low-cost fuel that has huge reserves
accessible to both industrialized and developing countries. It should not make use of much freshwater
or arable land, which are likely to be scarce in a climate-changed world with 3 billion more people.
Solar electric thermal, also known as concentrated solar power (CSP), meets all these criteria. A
technology that has the beauty of simplicity, it has proved effective for generations. As the Web site of CSP
company Ausra illustrates, solar thermal has a long and fascinating history.

Solar power will outlast oil and natural gas
Stuart Gorin 2008, Correspondent at America.gov, “Florida Firm Focuses on Clean Energy To Replace Fossil
Fuels,”http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/February/20080212110019ndyblehs0.9458277.html
Currently, the United States relies heavily on coal, oil and natural gas for its energy. Although natural
gas is considered a “clean” fossil fuel, the other two release carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that scientists
and environment advocates see as a health problem and a danger to the planet. These fossil fuels, finite
resources that eventually will dwindle, are considered nonrenewable. In contrast, wind and solar
energy, which are replenished constantly and are limitless, are emissions-free and cost-effective energy
sources.
Solar energy helps conserve fossil fuels

DOE & NREL 2008 (Department of Energy and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, April 1,
“Environmental Benefits of Solar Energy,” http://www.aessolarenergy.com/environmental_benefits.htm)
This is a simple, yet important effect of using Solar Energy. As more and more individuals, corporations,
and government use alternative energies such as solar, we conserve fossil fuels and other natural
resources that are quickly diminishing.
CSP in US can replace 90% of fossil fuels

Rosslyn Beeby 08, Science and Environment Reporter, “Solar thermal energy can ‘replace coal in US,” ln
Solar thermal electricity can be the "big gorilla on the grid", replacing coal-fired power stations across
the United States, the world's biggest greenhouse polluter, over the next 40 years, a leading
Australian scientist says. California-based solar energy entrepreneur and former
Sydney University physicist David Mills told a US energy conference solar power was
the only technology capable of "almost eliminating" global warming caused by
electricity generation by 2050. Solar thermal electricity could supply "the great majority" of the
US electricity grid and " by logical extension those of China and India", as well as eliminating carbon
emissions from cars by powering fast-recharging electric vehicles. Earlier this month, federal Energy
Minister Martin Ferguson described Australia as a fossil-fuel dependent economy, adding there
was no alternative to building new coal-fired power stations. Frustrated by a lack of federal
funding for renewables, Dr Mills left Australia last year to base his solar energy company, Ausra,
in California, after venture capitalists offered $US40million ($A43million) to bankroll his world-
first technology. The company is currently building a 177-megawatt solar thermal plant to supply
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
launching the project last November. Addressing an International Energy Agency conference in California, Dr
Mills said peer-reviewed research showed 90 per cent of US electric grid and car energy needs
could be met by solar thermal power. "The US could nearly eliminate dependence on
coal, oil and gas for electricity and transportation, drastically slashing global
warming pollution without increasing costs for energy. "This new study shows that our
daily and annual energy needs closely match the energy production potential from solar thermal power
plants with heat energy storage, and our models show solar thermal power will cost less than
continuing to import oil." Dr Mills called for " a rethink of the function and form of electricity grid
networks" to include solar thermal arrays, which use lines of computer- controlled mirrors to
capture the sun's energy to boil water and drive steam turbines. During a visit to Australia this
month, Dr Mills said China "clearly favours solar thermal far above any other resource" for
electricity generation and had already held high-level discussions with his company. CSIRO
National Solar Energy Centre research leader Wes Stein said solar thermal energy could make a
"substantial and positive" contribution to cutting Australia's greenhouse emissions. "The
technology is certainly there and we can do it, but there are complexities and a lot of pragmatics
to consider because it takes time for large solar installations to be designed and built." It would
only require a solar thermal array built across an area about "50km by 50km square in the
centre of Australia somewhere" to supply all of Australia's electricity needs by 2020, he said.
"Solar thermal is really taking off globally and there is an opportunity for Australia to get on board
as a maker, rather than a taker, of technology."

Solar solves fossil fuel dependence
Sarah Lozanavoa 08, MBA in Sustainable Management from the Presidio School of Management, Solar Thermal
Electricity: Can It Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil? http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-
replace-coal-gas-and-oil/
One of the most common arguments against large-scale use of renewable energy is that it cannot produce a
steady, reliable stream of energy, day and night. Ausra Inc. does not agree. They believe that solar thermal
technology can supply over 90% of grid power, while reducing carbon emissions. “The U.S. could
nearly eliminate our dependence on coal, oil and gas for electricity and transportation, drastically
slashing global warming pollution without increasing costs for energy,” said David Mills, chief scientific
officer and founder of Ausra. You may be wondering, how will we have electricity at night or during cloudy
weather? Will we use large banks of batteries or burn candles? The ability to utilize solar thermal technology
after the sun sets is made possible by a storage system that is up to 93% efficient, according to Ausra’s
executive vice president John O’Donnell. High efficiency is achieved because solar thermal plants do not
need to convert energy to another form in order to store it and do not rely on battery technology. Flat moving
recflectors or parabolic mirrors focus solar energy to generate heat. This heat generates steam that turns
turbines, thus generating an electric current. If you want to generate electricity-at, say, 3 am-heat from the
sun can be stored for later use. This gives solar thermal technology the ability to not just produce peak power,
but also generate base load electricity.
Solvency – Incentives
Government incentives key to starting solar industry
Las Vegas Sun 07, Nevada steps closer to solar economy, Dec 22, 2007,
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2007/dec/22/nevada-steps-closer-to-solar-economy/
Without all-important investment tax credits Nevada's solar economy will still grow, thanks to the politics of
climate change and increasing fossil fuel prices, but at a much slower rate, according to David Hassenzahl,
chairman of UNLV's environmental studies department. He compared the solar industry to the oil and
nuclear industries, which would never have been profitable had they not long received huge
government financial support. "Government needs to intervene in (industries) with long-term payback
and large public benefits," he said. Resch said expanding the state's incentive program for residential solar
installation would also stimulate the industry. Sierra Pacific Resources' solar rebate program, which helps
residential customers, small businesses, schools and government agencies pay to install photovoltaic panels,
is in its fifth year. There are a limited number of slots available each year, slots typically fill almost
immediately and there is a waiting list for the program. "I think you can say that Nevada has done a lot to
bring investment in new (solar) manufacturing to the state. But in 2006 New Jersey installed 25 times
more photovoltaic (solar) than Nevada," he said. "The reason: New Jersey provided the incentives to
create a solar market."
Solvency – Incentives
Incentives key to CSP development
The major issue that the NRC raised was the question of whether the deployment figures used by S&L in
projecting cost reductions could be achieved. S&L determined that a deployment of 2.6 GW would result in
the cost of electricity from a solar trough plant being reduced from 12.6 to 6.2 cents/kWh. In its critique, the
NRC concluded that “without substantial incentives, it is very unlikely that CSP trough and tower
markets will evolve, and that if CSP markets are ever to reach cost competitiveness, market incentives
for CSP would again have to be created.”40 Due to the high costs of first-of-a-kind plants, the committee
felt there was little chance that 2.6 GW would be deployed and, because of this, they disagreed with S&L’s
cost projections. However, the NRC agreed with S&L that deployment, should it occur, would affect cost
reduction.
Incentives key to solar power

Even though some solar generating technologies could benefit from research and development, it was made
clear that solar resources are abundant; are located where they are needed; that efficiencies from
concentrating solar power (CSP) are good enough to justify deployment; and cost projections are very
promising. All that solar power required, in the opinion of the experts, is an incubation period, where
incentives are put in place that allow the transition of this emerging generating technology into the
mainstream. It is our view that providing such an incubation period is not a leap of faith, but a proven recipe
of success, as the emergence of wind generating technology in Europe has shown.
Solvency – Wind Trade-0ff

Solar power development will allow it to replace wind power on the grid
New Mexico Independent 08, Shadow over solar New Mexico Independent, 07/03/2008
http://www.newmexicoindependent.com/view/shadow-on-suns
With storage capabilities, CSP could be even more reliable than wind, which Bingaman said has been the
"fastest growing source of new generation" over the last two years. "Concentrating solar power has
been pointed to as the next inheritor of the mantle that wind now wears," he said. Wind has made
greater headway than other renewables because it costs about 8 or 9 cents per kilowatt hour, about the
same as natural gas. "Many in the industry believe that concentrating solar power could reach that
price range within five to 10 years simply from the economies of scale that would come from installing
a lot of it," Bingaman said.
Solvency – Tech Ready

CSP can be used now
CSP, in particular the solar trough, is proven, reliable technology. There are no technical barriers to
deployment of this technology today, and APS is aggressively exploring the near-term potential.
CSP easily deployed by utilities- same as traditional power plants

All CSP technologies can be deployed as large centrally-located power plants, the type of systems that
utilities have operated for years and with which they are most comfortable, while some CSP
technologies can also be deployed as smaller-scale distributed generation resources.
Technology Ready for CSP generation

For solar power generation using CSP, the annual average amount of solar energy reaching the ground
needs to be 6.0 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day (kWh/m2/day) or higher. This is the case in
many regions of the West (see “The Solar Energy Potential”). In premium solar resource areas, the average
annual solar radiation exceeds 7.0 kWh/m2/day. Using the most efficient solar generating technology (dish
Stirling), an area the size of an NBA basketball court located in a premium solar resource would generate
60,740 kWh of electricity a year. To generate the same amount of electric energy, natural gas equivalent to 60
barrels of oil would have to be burned in a combined cycle power plant. Exhibit 20 displays this energy and
shows that solar radiation is a concentrated form of power. Current technology can capture large amounts
of this energy and convert it to electricity—indefinitely, domestically, and with no pollution or price
volatility.
CSP can come online faster than any alternative – design is simple
The technology has no obvious bottlenecks and uses mostly commodity materials -- steel, concrete and
glass. The central component, a standard power system routinely used by the natural gas industry
today, would create steam to turn a standard electric generator. Plants can be built rapidly -- in two to
three years -- much faster than nuclear plants. It would be straightforward to build CSP systems at
whatever rate industry and governments needed, ultimately 50 to 100 gigawatts a year growth or more.
Solvency – Energy Grid

Solar power is viable and could eliminate US use of power sources that are finite or require
dependency on other countries
A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could
supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050. A vast area of
photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as
compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours. Large solar concentrator power
plants would be built as well. A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar
electricity across the country. But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund
the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive. High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to
stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as
China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over
energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as
vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere annually, threatening the planet. Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and
politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps
are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that
a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer. Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The
energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a
year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the
Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than
4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of
that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006. To convert
the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar
energy efficiently across the nation. The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand
plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes
transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates
equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind,
biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the
nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.
Solvency – Federal Action Key
The US government is key to sustaining investor confidence in solar energy

UNEP FI 2004
(United Nations Environmental Programme: Financial Initiative, “CEO Briefing”, June,
http://www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/SEFI/CEO%20Briefing%20Final.pdf)
The world needs more energy to enable economic development, but conventional fuels are a finite resource,
contribute to climate change, and are creating other problems and risks such as smog, extended supply lines,
and vulnerable power grids. A switch to renewables would help avoid these problems, create new job
opportunities, and reduce the drain on hard currency for poorer countries. Since conventional fuels received
long-term subsidies in the past (and still do in many cases), government support in the form of financial
incentives for the development of renewable energy is necessary in order to create a level playing field
In terms of enhancing wind markets, there is often a lack of long-term wind data for correlation with onsite
measurements. In terms of developing less mature technologies such as geothermal or even solar, there
needs to be significant support from government (e.g. a tariff regime, subsidies). As to the development
of new technologies using renewable energy sources, such as tidal power stations, there needs to be a strong
drive from financially strong private industry- companies need to provide the financial capacity for
developments in these markets. The most important thing that policymakers can do is create confidence
in the long-term future of the renewables market. This requires measures that appeal to the various
types of financial institutions. Those providing primary services on a large scale (e.g. credit, project
finance, insurance) respond to policies that make "the deal on the table" attractive financially. This can
be done by supporting the renewables supplier or purchaser.
Access to federal lands key to solar industry

Also, the possibility of locating large scale solar on federal land should be investigated and analyzed.
By its nature, solar technologies require significant geographic footprints. A general rule of thumb for a
solar installation is 5 to 10 acres per megawatt. As I previously stated, the Solana Generating Station requires
three square miles of contiguous land. Considering that the federal government is the largest land owner
in the US, a study of federal land in high solar resource areas that may be made available for CSP
development would also be beneficial and appropriate.

Rapid Access to Federal Lands key to the Solar industry
New York Times 6/27/08 Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?ref=science
But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread
concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize
their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable
alternative energy is accelerating. “It doesn’t make any sense,” said Holly Gordon, vice president for
legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. “The Bureau
of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely
stunt the growth of the industry.” Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land
in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where
sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.
Public lands have high potential for energy production

Department of the Interior 06, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett Testifies on Department's
Leadership in Renewable Energy Production, July 11, 2006,
http://www.interior.gov/news/06_News_Releases/060711.htm
“By providing opportunities to develop renewable energy sources on public lands, the Department of
the Interior is helping to enhance energy security by diversifying our nation’s energy portfolio,”
Scarlett said. Lands managed by the department’s Bureau of Land Management currently supply almost half
of the nation’s geothermal generation and more than 5 percent of its installed wind capacity. In 2006 they will
supply an estimated 60,000 tons of biomass, she noted. “Moreover, the department will continue to lead by
example, utilizing renewable energy resources such as solar, geothermal, and wind power at existing and new
DOI facilities,” according to the Deputy Secretary. The BLM alone generates a total of 185 megawatt-hours
of electricity from photovoltaic systems each year from more than 600 installations, Scarlett said. The
National Park Service also is utilizing innovations in solar power at facilities throughout the National Park
System. The Zion National Park Visitor Center, for example, uses 66 percent less energy than traditional
energy systems and is virtually immune to the frequent power outages in the region. The testimony also gave
other examples of renewable energy use by BLM, NPS, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The potential for more renewable energy production on public lands is high, according
to BLM and Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. A 2003 assessment indicated
that 20 BLM planning units in seven western states have high potential for power production from
three or more renewable energy sources.
Federal lands best available for solar power

Climate Wire 08, A solar-motivated land rush hits the southwestern deserts, June 24th, 2008
http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=1314
What is causing the land rush is that each large CSP plant may require as much as a 2-square-mile
area for its solar arrays. “It would occupy the same area as a nuclear power plant, when you take into
consideration its buffer zones,” explained Resch. Desert land in the Southwest, he added, is prized by
project developers because it amounts to some of the “best solar resources in the entire world.” “You
can take land that has no intrinsic value and put it to use creating carbon free energy,” Resch said, but
he added that probably not more than a third of the 125 applications before BLM are serious solar energy
proposals. The remaining projects involve “names unfamiliar to us in the solar energy” and may represent
“land grabs by smart entrepreneurs.”

Huge demand to build solar on federal lands
San Diego Union-Tribune 08 Federal agency flooded with developer proposals , June 3, 2008
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080603-9999-1n3desert.html
Speculators have filed applications to develop more than 1 million acres of desert in Southern California
with solar, wind and geothermal power plants, setting up a classic clash over land use with
environmentalists and off-road enthusiasts. They have submitted at least 130 proposals with the Bureau
of Land Management, which oversees all of the territory, in recent years and especially since 2007. The
interest is so hot that even if many of the projects fall through, the remaining ones would change the
look of the arid landscape. California, particularly the southern half, is the epicenter of the nation's push for
renewable energy. While some of the bureau's parcels in the state already contain wind and geothermal
facilities, the agency hasn't approved any solar project here or elsewhere.
Federal lands key

Facilitate the use of federal public lands for CSP. Public lands are uniquely important for the
development of CSP. Much of the best CSP solar is on public lands and these lands also provide the
land area necessary for CSP facilities. First, the Secretaries of Interior and Energy should carry out the
directive of EPACT 2005, Sec. 201 to assess and update available assessments of solar resources. See also
EPACT Sec. 1833 (directing the preparation of a National Academy of Science (NAS) study of the
renewable potential of public resources.) The agencies should be provided the budgetary resources to
identify, in no more than six months, optimal sites for utility scale (CSP) solar energy. By optimal, I
mean sites that are in proximity to electric and gas transmission lines, are sufficiently flat, not
environmentally sensitive, and have a radiation level of at least 7 kWh per square meter. Although the
NREL GIS report and maps mentioned above are a good start, more assessment work can and should be
done to accelerate the development of CSP. For example, the NREL GIS maps must be integrated with
the BLM land use planning GIS, which is not now the case. <bullet> These identified optimal
sites should be set aside as potential ``CSP solar parks'' of at least 10 square miles (enough for at least
1GW in each solar park). This designation would allow common infrastructure--roads and transmission
lines--to be effectively consolidated and timely and cost-efficient planning and environmental
permitting completed. <bullet> BLM must be directed to expeditiously update their land use
plans in these optimal areas to provide for the use of public lands for CSP projects and the
development of CSP solar parks. BLM has recently identified the need to complete new or updated land
use plans to include consideration of the NREL solar assessments of CSP potential areas. BLM has
suggested that land use plan amendments can be concurrently completed during the application process for a
particular CSP project. Ex. 1, BLM IM 2007-097 at 2.

( ) The federal government has access to more resources as a whole than individual states
High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least
in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand
for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and
natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet. Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists
and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These
steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us
that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer. Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy
in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S.
is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest
alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500
quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that
radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.
To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels
and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send
that energy efficiently across the nation. The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand
plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes
nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100. The federal government would have to invest more
than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the
payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The
infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all
the fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S.
trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are
almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion
tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids
refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005
levels, putting a major brake on global warming.
Solvency – Now Key

Now key time- short term promotion of solar power now key to developing base load
energy capacity
Lockwood 08Testimony of Barbara D. Lockwood, P.E., Manager, Renewable Energy Arizona Public Service
These initial plants are planned to supplement existing fossil fuel resources and help to satisfy our growing
energy needs. In the long term, utility scale solar could be a viable option in replacing base load fossil fuel
facilities as those assets are retired. But costs need to decline significantly to make that a viable option. Only
then will solar be a viable option for replacing base load assets that are being retired. Assuming success in the
near term, the prospect for the next 20 to 50 years is virtually unlimited.
Solvency – Fast Time Frame

Only solar power can be brought on fast enough to solve energy demands
Solar power plants can be built quickly and can thus follow demand growth more closely than most
conventional power projects. Capacity can be built within one to two years—start to finish. This is
primarily because solar plants have short development and construction times. The long lead times of
many types of conventional power projects, especially those of coal and nuclear plants, combined with
their large size, which is dictated by economies of scale, causes significant lumpiness in supply
additions.8 During such a long lead time, market fundamentals that originally justified the investment
may have changed substantially, putting the economic viability of the project into question. Therefore,
fast permitting and construction times are key competitive factors for any power generator.
Solvency – Energy Prices

Incentives for solar key to solving price shocks
If western states want to hedge against fuel price volatility, then a diversification of energy sources is
essential. Renewable energies with no fuel cost, such as wind and solar, can play a fundamental role in
hedging against volatility. Portfolio theory clearly shows that even higher cost resources such as
renewables can result in lower long-run energy costs at the same risk level.4 An energy policy with a
long-term strategy of reducing dependence on fossil fuels should not tie the revenues of renewable
electricity to current prices for fossil fuels. Instead, such a policy should provide incentives that will
generate sufficient revenues for emerging renewable technologies, to ensure that such technologies can
enter the marketplace regardless of the price levels of fossil fuels. If an energy policy does not
proactively work to encourage renewable technologies and instead relies on tying renewable revenues
to fossil fuel prices, the price signals from fossil fuels will only attract investment in renewable power
when it is too late. With low fossil fuel prices, the demand for fossil fuel will increase, which in turn
might accelerate the fossil fuel price, in some cases rapidly. The time is then too short to construct
renewable technology to use instead of the now expensive fossil fuel. An example is the low natural gas
prices of the late 1990s, which attracted hundreds of thousands of megawatts of natural gas-fired generation,
which then resulted in increased demand for this commodity, and finally the natural gas price spikes seen in
2001.
CSP plants provide an essential hedge against fossil fuel price increases
NREL 2006, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, April 21, 2006, Economic, Energy, and Environmental
Benefits of Concentrating Solar Power in California, http://www.scribd.com/doc/1590985/Environmental-
Protection-Agency-comment683addattachcomment682
CSP plants provide environmental benefits by generating power without producing criteria and CO2
air emissions. In addition, the use of fixed cost renewable energy generation, such as CSP or wind, can
decrease fossil fuel use and provide a hedge against fossil fuel price increases. While CSP plants may
have environmental benefits due to emissions reductions, they do require significant land area. A 100 MW
CSP plant is estimated to cover approximately 800 acres (comprised mostly of the solar field) while a 500
MW combined cycle plant would occupy about 20 acres.
Widespread adoption of CSP will drive down costs

A cursory review of Exhibit 18 shows why CSP is the leading technology. The combination of low capital
costs and high efficiencies results in the lowest cost of power.1 The capital and power cost numbers in
Exhibit 18 are based on annual installation levels of about 100 MW for each technology and current
technology and production processes. All CSP technologies, and in particular parabolic trough, power tower,
and dish Stirling, have great promise for significant cost reductions. This could result in a much lower
cost than shown in Exhibit 18, if these technologies are more widely adopted.

Solar power key to Western Energy demands- solves better than wind
From an operational point of view, solar power appears to be the preferred renewable energy source in
the Southwest. Solar power output is generally correlated with daily and seasonal loads, while—except
in a few places—wind generation is essentially random. In addition, the Southwest has better solar
resources than wind resources. If space were the only consideration, solar plants in premium solar
resources areas can produce 3.5 times more energy per square mile than a wind power plant located in the
highest wind resource class. Of course, land use underneath a wind farm can continue undisturbed while a
solar farm requires all the land, but at the same time solar resources are almost always located in deserts.
From a transmission point of view, solar resources are also preferred because some of the best solar
resources are located close to load centers—cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas. The much lower
visibility of solar plants compared to the hundreds-of-feet-tall wind turbines also makes it easier to site
these plants close to urban areas. For all these reasons, energy from solar power appears to be the
preferred renewable energy source in the Southwest. Western states that do not have good solar resources
are fortuitously endowed with plenty of wind resources. Solar power and wind energy are found—except in a
few fortunate places—in different locales in the West.
Increasing CSP energy output drops energy prices

CSP costs have already begun to decline as production increases. According to a 2008 Sandia National
Laboratory presentation, costs are projected to drop to 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour when capacity
exceeds 3,000 MW. The world will probably have double that capacity by 2013. The price drop will
likely occur even if the current high prices for raw materials like steel and concrete continue (prices
that also affect the competition, like wind, coal and nuclear power).

CSP cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear power
TREC-UK 08, The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation, a multinational group of scientists and
engineers, CSP: Costs, http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/costs.htm, accessed 7-9-2008)
In assessing the cost of CSP and comparing it with other sources of electricity, we should take account
of the following things: Electricity from fossil fuels is artificially cheap because: Fossil fuels are still
receiving large subsidies around the world. In 2004, the New Economics Foundation made a conservative
estimate that worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels were about $235bn a year. There appears to have been
little change since then. To a large extent, companies that generate electricity by burning fossil fuels are
still being allowed to use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for CO2. The real price of nuclear
electricity is disguised by many hidden subsidies and is certainly substantially higher than CSP. A
report by the New Economics Foundation, published in 2005, said that a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a
nuclear generator will cost as much as 8.3 pence (16.3 US cents) once realistic construction and running costs
are factored in, compared with about 3 pence (5.9 US cents) claimed by the nuclear industry—and that's
without including costs arising from the wider risks associated with nuclear power such as terrorism, the
danger of proliferation and accidents. CSP can produce substantial benefits in addition to clean
electricity (such as fresh water from the desalination of sea water and horticulture as an associated
industry) and these benefits should be factored in to any cost-benefit analysis of CSP. As the CSP
industry expands, costs will fall because of economies of scale and refinements in the technologies. The
TRANS-CSP report from the German Aerospace Centre calculates that CSP is likely to become one of the
cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmitting it. Taking all these things
into account: It is likely that electricity from CSP is already cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels
and nuclear power, when the environmental costs of those technologies are fully internalised. It is likely
that the costs of those technologies will continue to increase, while the cost of CSP will continue falling.
Solvency – Environmental Impact Statement key
EIS key to ecosystems and solar industry – CSP passes EIS

New York Times 6/27/08 Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?ref=science
The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that
many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being
proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and
wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the
effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel. Water use can be a factor as
well, especially in the parched areas where virtually all of the proposed plants would be built.
Concentrating solar plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the turbine. “Reclamation
is another big issue,” Ms. Resseguie said. “These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span. How to
restore that land is a big question for us.” Another benefit of the study will be a single set of
environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application
process, said the assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen
Allred. The land agency’s manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new applications
was necessary to “ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts.”
Solvency – Natural Gas

Solar key to decreasing Natural Gas demand
Environmental News Service 1/27/05, Solar Industry Drums Up Congressional Support, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-27-09.asp
With natural gas demand and prices skyrocketing, much of the briefing focused on the role solar could play
in easing the natural gas crunch. SEIA's Rhone Resch estimated that solar power would displace six trillion
cubic feet of natural gas by 2025 under the Roadmap scenario, saving American consumers approximately
$60 billion.
Solvency – Environment
Solar Energy does not pollute significantly
Roaf & Gupta 07 Susan Roaf & Rajat Gupta, visiting professor Open University & Senior Lecturer at Oxford
Brookes University, 2007, Sustainable Energy: opportunities and limitations, ed. D. Elliott, p. 86 (HARVEN2704)
Solar technologies have low pollution impacts. There will of course be emissions from producing the
energy used to manufacture the solar systems, and this is relatively high for solar PV, but even with PV the
energy debt will be paid back within between one to three and a half years and the pollution resulting
from the sealed units is non-existent, although concerns about some of the substances used in the
production of the panels have tended to drive the markets away from certain panel types including those
made with the carcinogenic cadmium telluride (Fthenakis, 2003).
Solar technologies are improving to be more eco friendly

Scheidegger et al 2001, "Minimizing the environmental impact of large-scale rural PV"; Renewable Energy
World, http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/995469913_2.html
During operation, PV and solar thermal technologies produce no air pollution, little or no noise, and
require no transportable fuels. One environmental worry with solar technologies is the lead-acid
batteries that are used with some systems. This is a concern especially in developing countries where
proper disposal and recycling is not always available. The impact of these lead batteries is lessening
however as batteries become more recyclable, batteries of improved quality are produced and better
quality solar systems that enhance battery lifetimes are created. [31]
Replacing fossil fuels in our portfolio of energy sources is a long-term goal of solar power
programs
Palumbo, 04, is a researcher at the Laboratory for Solar Technology of the Paul Scherrer Institute in Villigen,
Switzerland. Palumbo is also a professor at Valparaiso University in Indiana (Robert, packaging sunlight
Methods under study aim to capture solar energy where it is abundant and deliver it where it is needed, 7/7/08,
http://www.memagazine.org/pemar04/pckgsun/pckgsun.html)
Metals are attractive candidates for storage and transport of solar energy. Furthermore, the replacement of fossil fuels by
solar fuels, such as solar hydrogen and solar metals produced from sunlight alone, is a long-term goal.
It requires the development of new technologies, and it will take time before these methods are
technically and economically ready for commercial applications. That makes it strategically desirable
to consider mid-term goals aiming at the development of hybrid solar/fossil-fuel endothermic processes
in which fossil fuels are used exclusively as chemical reactants and solar energy as the source of process
heat.
Solar power hazards are small and the positives outweigh
Environmental Protection Agency 2001, "Global Warming: Calculators".
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/tools/calculators.html
Since the environmental impact of solar technologies is relatively small, it is perhaps more beneficial to
take a look at the enormous amount of pollution that is prevented due to the use of solar technologies.
The US EPA has developed a solar environmental benefits calculator which computes, based on the
amount of electricity produced by a PV system and the geographic location of that system, the amount
of nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon dioxide (CO2) that is prevented from being
emitted each year. A similar calculator is provided by BP Solar. The amount of emissions that can be
prevented through the use of a small PV system is surprising. For example, if in Iowa, a relatively small 500
watt PV system was installed, emissions of 4 lbs. of NOx, 8 lbs. of SO2, and 6,733 lbs. of CO2 would be
avoided annually. [34] At the same location, if a modest 66 gallon solar hot water system was installed, an
additional 18 lbs. NOx, 37 lbs. SO2, and 8,546 lbs. of CO2 would be avoided annually. [35]
Solar energy is environmentally friendly

Natural Resources Canada, 98 (Photovoltaic Solar Energy, 7/8/08,
http://www.newenergy.org/sesci/publications/pamphlets/photovoltaic.html)
Solar energy is a renewable resource that is environmentally friendly. Unlike fossil fuels, solar energy is
available just about everywhere on earth. And this source of energy is free, immune to rising energy
prices. Solar energy can be used in many ways - to provide heat, lighting, mechanical power and
electricity. Photovoltaic energy Sunlight is converted to electricity using photovoltaic or solar cells.
Photovoltaic (PV) cells are semiconductor devices, usually made of silicon, which contain no liquids,
corrosive chemicals or moving parts. They produce electricity as long as light shines on them, they require
little maintenance, do not pollute and they operate silently, making photovoltaic energy the cleanest and
safest method of power generation.
CSP does not produce harmful emissions
AZO Cleantech, January 6, 2008 (What is a Solar Power Tower and How do They Work?
http://www.azocleantech.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=24, Accessed July 8, 2008)
No hazardous gaseous or liquid emissions are released during operation of the solar power tower plant.
If a salt spill occurs, the salt will freeze before significant contamination of the soil occurs. Salt is
picked up with a shovel and can be recycled if necessary. If the power tower is hybridized
with a conventional fossil plant, emissions will be released from the non-solar
portion of the plant.
Environmental disaster impacts are overexaggerated

engineers, CSP: Questions, http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/questions.htm, Accessed July 8, 2008)
If the world’s deserts were all to be covered with CSP plants, there would indeed be cause for concern
about the animals and plants that live there. But less than 1% of the world’s deserts would meet
current world demands for electricity and even in pessimistic scenarios, it seems unlikely that more than
5% would be needed in the future. It should be possible for CSP plants and wildlife to co-exist. In a
similar way, it seems likely that CSP plants would have a minimal impact on the lives of people that live
in deserts. Indeed, by providing employment, electricity, water, shading from strong sunlight, and
opportunities for horticulture, any impacts may be more positive than otherwise.
Federal lands key to energy diversity and protection of wildlife

Department of the Interior 06, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett Testifies on Department's
Leadership in Renewable Energy Production, July 11, 2006,
http://www.interior.gov/news/06_News_Releases/060711.htm
“Energy is vital to expanding our economy and enhancing our quality of life . . . renewable and other
alternative domestic resources [are] important component[s] of the nation’s energy portfolio,” Scarlett said in
conclusion. “Lands managed by DOI have a major role to play in diversifying the nation’s energy sources
while ensuring protection of habitat and mitigating impacts to wildlife, cultural and natural resources.”
Concentrated Solar Power Produces no Harmful Emissions

AZO Cleantech, January 6, 2008 (What is a Solar Power Tower and How do They Work?
http://www.azocleantech.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=24, Accessed July 8, 2008)
No hazardous gaseous or liquid emissions are released during operation of the solar power tower plant.
If a salt spill occurs, the salt will freeze before significant contamination of the soil occurs. Salt is
picked up with a shovel and can be recycled if necessary. If the power tower is hybridized
with a conventional fossil plant, emissions will be released from the non-solar
portion of the plant.
Less than 5% of Desert Lands Ever Needed

If the world’s deserts were all to be covered with CSP plants, there would indeed be cause for concern
about the animals and plants that live there. But less than 1% of the world’s deserts would meet
current world demands for electricity and even in pessimistic scenarios, it seems unlikely that more than
5% would be needed in the future. It should be possible for CSP plants and wildlife to co-exist. In a
similar way, it seems likely that CSP plants would have a minimal impact on the lives of people that live
in deserts. Indeed, by providing employment, electricity, water, shading from strong sunlight, and
opportunities for horticulture, any impacts may be more positive than otherwise.
BLM regs prevent environmental harms
Jim Hughes 07, DIRECTOR AT THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, OVERSIGHT HEARING before
the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Energy Policy Act directs the Department of Interior to take actions to promote the development of
domestic renewable energy supplies. The BLM has a clear mandate to provide access to energy
development on public lands in balance with other multiple use purposes. Strict mitigation measures
are employed to minimize environmental impacts on public lands.
No risk of habitat destruction

Jim Hughes 07, DIRECTOR AT THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, OVERSIGHT HEARING before
the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Thursday, April 19, 2007
The BLM's land use planning process seeks to ensure that energy development on public lands is done
in a way that protects the environment. Strict mitigation measures are employed to minimize impacts
on wildlife from habitat fragmentation, ground disturbances, or noise resulting from renewable
energy development. Increasingly, BLM is mitigating effects of energy production and other activities
through available land use planning tools.
CSP solves air pollution

CSP also helps utilities come into compliance with existing Federal, State, and local air quality
regulations. The environmental impact of solar energy depends on what fuel source was used to generate the
electricity it is replacing. Relative to a typical natural gas combined cycle plant, the cleanest source of
fossil-fueled electricity, a 100 MW CSP plant with 6 hours of storage reduces NOx emissions by 7.4
tons/year, CO emissions by 4.5 tons/year, and CO2 emissions by 191,000 tons/year.55 It should be noted,
however, that this environmental analysis did not include a complete life cycle analysis that took into account
the emissions resulting from constructing the power plants or from making the materials that went into the
plants.
Solvency – AT: Not Cost Competitive

Solar power is becoming cost-competitive with coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants.
Washington Business Journal, 6/17/2008 (Solar Power Becoming More Cost Effective,
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/06/16/daily26.html?ana=from_rss)
The U.S. could generate 10 percent of its electricity through solar sources by 2025, suggests a new study
released by Clean Edge and Co-op America. "As capital and fuel costs have doubled or tripled for coal,
natural gas, and nuclear power over the past few years, solar power costs are coming down," said Alisa
Gravitz, executive director of D.C.-based Co-op America. "For the first time in history, cost-competitive
solar power is now within the planning horizon of every utility in the nation." The study, based on
interviews with more than 30 solar, utility, financial, and policy experts, gives a comprehensive roadmap for
utilities, solar companies, and regulators to reach 10 percent of electricity from solar sources by 2025 -- a $26
billion to $33 billion-per-year investment. For the first time, solar power is beginning to reach cost parity
with conventional energy sources, says the study. As solar prices decline and the capital and fuel costs for
coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the U.S. will reach a crossover point by around 2015. "One of
the big takeaways from this report is that, in many ways, the future of solar is in the hands of utilities," said
Ron Pernick, co-founder of Clean Edge. "Reaching 10 percent of our electricity from solar sources by 2025
will require the active participation of utilities along with the support and participation of regulators and solar
technology companies." Some utilities and solar companies unveiled large-scale solar power projects this
year, including Duke Energy's stated goal of investing $100 million in rooftop solar and Pacific Gas &
Electric's announcements to invest in thousands of megawatts of concentrating solar power in California's
deserts.

Solar power is becoming more cost effective
Portland Business Journal 2008 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008, http://www.solaroregon.org/about/news_folder/solar-
power-becoming-more-cost-effective)
The U.S. could generate 10 percent of its electricity through solar sources by 2025, suggests a new study
released by Clean Edge and Co-op America "As capital and fuel costs have doubled or tripled for coal,
natural gas, and nuclear power over the past few years, solar power costs are coming down," said Alisa
Gravitz, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Co-op America. "For the first time in history, cost-
competitive solar power is now within the planning horizon of every utility in the nation." The study,
based on interviews with more than 30 solar, utility, financial, and policy experts, gives a comprehensive
roadmap for utilities, solar companies, and regulators to reach 10 percent of electricity from solar
sources by 2025 --- a $26 billion to $33 billion-per-year investment. For the first time, solar power is
beginning to reach cost parity with conventional energy sources, says the study. As solar prices decline
and the capital and fuel costs for coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the U.S. will reach a crossover
point by around 2015. "One of the big takeaways from this report is that, in many ways, the future of solar is
in the hands of utilities," said Ron Pernick, co-founder of Portland-based Clean Edge. "Reaching 10 percent
of our electricity from solar sources by 2025 will require the active participation of utilities along with the
support and participation of regulators and solar technology companies."
Solar Power creates jobs for people

Dudley 2008 (Chris Dudley, March 06, 2008, Solar Power Helps the Environment Energy Grid and Economy,
http://www.mdsolarpower.com/whysolarout.pdf)
Solar power provides a unique opportunity for creating jobs and reducing our trade deficits. It reduces
energy imports and dependence upon foreign oil, which mitigates the risk of fuel price volatility. Solar
power improves grid reliability and supplies electricity when and where it is most limited and most
expensive, making it a highly valuable and strategic contribution: solar electricity can guarantee a
more stable energy economy. The Environment – Photovoltaic (PV) technology has very little impact on
our environment: it is one of the cleanest generation technologies available. In its operation, PV does not
produce any air pollution or hazardous wastes. In contrast, traditional power sources are the primary source
of groundlevel air pollution, which causes severe health and environmental problems and is obviously a
visible eyesore to all communities. Furthermore, PV doesn’t release greenhouse gases, and therefore is a
strong measure for mitigating global warming. Global warming is the cause of rising sea levels and regional
climate shifts – both of which have a sever impact on ecosystems, agriculture, and coastal areas. One more
point to consider is that PV has no mechanical or moving parts, making its operation silent. The Energy Grid
– PV has an elegant design which allows it to be scaled and placed directly where power is consumed, or
where the energy grid needs to shoreup capacity and energy for evolving demand. It is mobile and can be
relocated with ease. In addition, it does not need to transport or use combustible fuels from divergent regions
of the world; it uses a natural, abundant and free fuel source – the Sun. Because of this it can guarantee
energy at times when demand is at its peak – seasonal and cyclical variations are well matched. All of
this makes photovoltaics a sensible and secure candidate for enabling energy assurance. The grid can be
designed to be redundant with a fixed energy price, as opposed to the shaky centralized infrastructure that is
dependent upon unreliable fuel sources and is open to disruption from disasters either natural or manmade.
Just consider how differently we would respond to a hurricane if every fourth house had enough power for a
refrigerator and some tools. People could get right to work on recovery and not wait on ice. Medicines and
food would not spoil. When the grid is gone, solar can save the day.
Solvency – Base Energy Load

Solar can meet base energy load
World Nuclear Association, 08 (7/8/08, Renewable Energy and Electricity, http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/inf10.html)
With adequate insulation, heat pumps utilising the conventional refrigeration cycle can be used to
warm and cool buildings, with very little energy input other than from the sun. Eventually, up to ten
percent of total primary energy in industrialised countries may be supplied by direct solar thermal
techniques, and to some extent this will substitute for base-load electrical energy.
Solar energy can be used to meet base load

The Energy Blog, 07 (DOE Finally Begins Support of CSP, 7/8/08,
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/316957/18853462)
DOE has found that Nevada, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Utah and Texas have enough combined
potential project sites to provide up to 6800 MW of generating capacity – roughly equivalent to seven
times the country’s current electricity generating capacity. CSP technology is the least expensive solar
technology for providing large quantities of electrical power, and with sufficient storage, it can deliver
baseload power.
Solvency – Peak Energy Load

Solar energy can meet peak energy needs
International Energy Agency, 08 (ENERGY: RD&D Priorities Insights from IEA Technology Programmes, 7/8/08,
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2006/renewenergy.pdf)
Concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies are flexible. They are appropriate for a wide range of
applications including dispatchable central-station power plants, in which they can meet peak-load to
near-base-load needs of a utility, and distributed modular power plants (for both remote and grid-
connected applications). • Another inherent advantage of CSP technologies is their unique ability to
integrate into conventional thermal plants. As such, solar thermal systems are essentially the only
renewable power plants that will neither cause grid perturbations nor disturb the operation of other
existing fossil plants in the entire power park. This makes CSP technologies a likely candidate for
large-scale emissions reduction at reasonable cost.
Solvency – Economies of Scale

Economies of scale are developing at unprecedented levels
Clean Edge America, 2008 (Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study, June 2008,
http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/USA_Study.pdf, accessed July 9, 2008)
Recent industry developments, particularly large-scale solar deployment plans announced by major
utilities, support the price projections outlined in this report. As utilities and others scale up their solar
efforts, they are reaching economies of scale unlike anything we’ve seen in the past. Southern
California Edison’s recently announced 250 MW rooftop installation program is the perfect
case in point. SCE could reach the $3.50 peak watt installed price as early as 2010. This supports the
case that such price points are achievable and that some players may even get there sooner.
Economies of scale make solar competitive

International Herald Tribune, 2007 (June 4, LexisNexis Academic)
Yes, these new technologies, as their opponents claim, are more expensive. But economies of scale coupled
with the increased price of fossil fuel, Bradford says, will inevitably make solar competitive, as it already
is in Japan and Germany, where energy costs are high.
Economies of scale push prices down

NYT, 2008 (Turning Glare Into Watts, March 6, 2008, p.1,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/business/06solar.html, accessed July 9, 2008)
Today, natural gas prices are much higher, and political opposition is rising to construction of new coal-
burning power plants. Many states, including California, are imposing mandates for renewable energy. All of
that is reviving interest in solar thermal plants. The power they produce is still relatively expensive.
Industry experts say the plant here produces power at a cost per kilowatt- hour of 15 to 20 cents. With a
little more experience and some economies of scale, that could fall to about 10 cents, according to a
recent report by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass. Newly built coal-fired
plants are expected to produce power at about 7 cents per kilowatt-hour or more if carbon is taxed.
Solvency – Plenty of Land

( ) The US has plenty of space to build these plants
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&print=true)
High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least
in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand
for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and
natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet. Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists
and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These
steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us
that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer. Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy
in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S.
is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest
alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500
quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that
radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006. To convert the
country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar
energy efficiently across the nation. The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan
that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes
nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100. The federal government would have to invest more
than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the
payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The
infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all
the fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S.
trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are
almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion
tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids
refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005
levels, putting a major brake on global warming.
Solvency – Generic
With large scale solar energy resources, 69% of our energy could be solar by 2050
Green Diary, 07, (12/29, Solar energy to replace 69% of US power supply by 2050,
http://www.greendiary.com/entry/solar-energy-to-replace-69-of-us-power-supply-by-2050, accessed 7/7/08)
With a steadily increasing number of organizations taking up projects to promote the use of solar
energy, the sun-generated energy could supply 69 percent of US power by 2050. Nope, that’s not
wishful thinking. Experts are positive that this is exactly what we can look forward to. In an article by
Ken Zweibel, James Mason, and Vasilis Fthenakis in Scientific American, dated January 2008, they talk
about a large-scale project to harness the solar energy resources of the USA Southwest between now
and the year 2050. They propagate that solar energy would widely replace coal, oil, natural gas, and
nuclear power to constitute 69 percent of US electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050. And
how is it hoped to be brought about? The perpetrators have well-chalked out plans for that. To begin
with, a vast area of photovoltaic cells will be erected. Excess daytime energy would be stored as
compressed air in underground caverns, to be tapped during night hours by running the compressed
air through turbines. Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well. This would require
for a large new direct-current power transmission ‘backbone’ to be constructed in order to deliver the
solar electricity across the USA. But, doesn’t this set-up require a neat sum? You bet it does — $420 billion
dollars in subsidies from 2011 to 2020 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost
competitive! After 2020, the solar technologies would compete on their own merits. The present 10-square-
miles would expand to 16,000-square-miles by the project’s end. Wow, it definitely sounds ambitious! We
can only hope that it works out fine. We know we need it, the world needs it, the environment needs it.
Solar energy has the power to reduce greenhouse gases and provide increased energy
efficiency
Science Daily, March 12, 2007, Solar Energy Conversion Offers a Solution to Help Mitigate Global Warming,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307075611.htm
Solar energy has the power to reduce greenhouse gases and provide increased energy efficiency, says a
scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, in a report published in the March
issue of Physics Today. Currently, between 80 percent and 85 percent of our energy comes from fossil
fuels. However, fossil fuel resources are of finite extent and are distributed unevenly beneath Earth's
surface. When fossil fuel is turned into useful energy through combustion, it often produces
environmental pollutants that are harmful to human health and greenhouse gases that threaten the
global climate. In contrast, solar resources are widely available and have a benign effect on the
environment and climate, making it an appealing alternative energy source.
Solar energy is carbon-neutral, non-polluting and immediately implementable

Prometheus Institute, 2006 (US Solar Energy: Year in Review, p. 2,
http://www.seia.org/Year_in_Solar_2006.pdf)
The environmental and global climate change impacts of how the US harnesses energy are increasingly
understood and we urgently need to switch to carbon-neutral forms of modern energy. Solar energy is
a non-polluting source of electricity and hot water that can be immediately deployed to reduce the
nation’s growing carbon pollution.
The CSP process carries a substantial potential to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollution
emissions by at least 30%
A key benefit of the use of CSP plants in California is the potential to reduce the amount of criteria and
greenhouse gas emissions. The installation of CSP may reduce air emissions if generating power from
CSP plants offsets generation from fossil fueled plants. For this calculation of emissions reductions, it has
been assumed that the CSP plants will displace generation by combined cycle plants with an average heat
rate of 7,000 Btu/kWh. Typical permitted emissions requirements for a new plant in southern California were
obtained from the California Air Resources Board, and are shown in Table 7-1. Based on these emission
rates, the table also shows the amount of emissions displaced by annual generation from a single 100 MW
trough plant with six hours of storage, as well as for the low deployment and high deployment scenarios of
2,100 MW and 4,000 MW of CSP generation capacities, respectively. The estimates in Table 7-1 are
conservative because of the assumption that CSP would displace emissions from new plants. CSP plants
could offset generation from older thermal natural gas or oil fueled generation with average heat rates equal
to or exceeding 10,000 Btu per kWh, which would increase the emissions offset by about 30 percent.
Furthermore, the older plants are unlikely to have modern air emissions control technology that would be
required on new plants. Thus, the increase in emissions offset by assuming displacement of older
generation would likely exceed 30 percent.
* NREL=National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Solar power reduces greenhouse gases—solves warming

Argonne National Laboratory 07, (“Solar Energy Conversion Offers A Solution to Global Warming”,
Science Daily Internet News Journal, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307075611.htm, accessed
7/8/08)
Solar energy has the power to reduce greenhouse gases and provide increased energy efficiency, says a
scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, in a report published in the
March issue of Physics Today. Currently, between 80 percent and 85 percent of our energy comes from fossil
fuels. However, fossil fuel resources are of finite extent and are distributed unevenly beneath Earth's surface.
When fossil fuel is turned into useful energy through combustion, it often produces environmental pollutants
that are harmful to human health and greenhouse gases that threaten the global climate. In contrast, solar
resources are widely available and have a benign effect on the environment and climate, making it an
appealing alternative energy source. “Sunlight is not only the most plentiful energy resource on earth, it
is also one of the most versatile, converting readily to electricity, fuel and heat,” said Crabtree. “The
challenge is to raise its conversion efficiency by factors of five or ten. That requires understanding the
fundamental conversion phenomena at the nanoscale. We are just scratching the surface of this rich research
field.” Argonne carries out forefront basic research on all three solar conversion routes. The laboratory is
creating next-generation nanostructured solar cells using sophisticated atomic layer deposition
techniques that replace expensive silicon with inexpensive titanium dioxide and chemical dyes. Its
artificial photosynthesis program imitates nature using simple chemical components to convert
sunlight, water and carbon dioxide directly into fuels like hydrogen, methane and ethanol. Its program
on thermoelectric materials takes heat from the sun and converts it directly to electricity.
Solar energy is far cleaner, uses fewer natural resources, and is renewable, and will thus replace
fossil fuels
Alaska Renewable Energy, 05 (7/7/08, http://www.arkansasrenewableenergy.org/solar/solar.html)
Solar energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels for many reasons: It is clean energy. Even when
the emissions related to solar cell manufacturing are counted, photovoltaic generation produces less than 15
percent of the carbon dioxide from a conventional coal-fired power plant. Using solar energy to replace the
use of traditional fossil fuel energy sources can prevent the release of pollutants into the atmosphere. Using
solar energy to supply a million homes with energy would reduce CO2 emissions by 4.3 million tons per
year, the equivalent of removing 850,000 cars from the road. Solar energy uses fewer natural resources
than conventional energy sources. Using energy from sunlight can replace the use of stored energy in
natural resources such as petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Energy industry researchers estimate that
the amount of land required for photovoltaic (PV) cells to produce enough electricity to meet all U.S.
power needs is less than 60,000 square kilometers, or roughly 20 percent of the area of Arizona. Solar
energy is a renewable resource. Some scientists and industry experts estimate that renewable energy
sources, such as solar, can supply up to half of the world's energy demand in the next 50 years, even as
energy needs continue to grow.
Solvency – AT: No Transmission Lines

New transmission lines coming now
In considering the long-term potential for utility scale solar, one topic of consideration is how to integrate
large solar plants into the regional and national electric grid. This topic raises numerous issues including
availability of land for large scale installation and the availability of transmission facilities and transmission
capacity to deliver the energy to load centers. The lack of transmission capacity and how that is managed will
be a significant factor in the long term success of utility-scale solar. In fact, transmission is generally
constrained in much of the west and significant new transmission investment is needed in the coming years
for all types of generation be they renewable or conventional generation. New transmission is being
planned throughout the west and in California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas specifically to access
renewable resources including wind and geothermal. Others states and utilities, including APS, are
studying their needs for both intra and interstate transmission to ensure a robust grid to meet the
needs of the West’s burgeoning population. The studies include the ability to reach those areas of the
west with abundant cost-effective renewable resources.
Solvency – AT: Intermittency

Intermittency not a problem
Issues associated with the intermittence of the sun, due both to cloud cover and the fact that the sun
sets each night, can be addressed through the addition of heat storage or fossil fuel hybridization. Heat
storage, expected in the form of molten salt, retains the heat from the daytime when the sun is shining and
allows generation during hours when the sun is not shining. Both parabolic trough and power towers are
capable of providing dispatchable electricity from heat storage. Fossil fuel hybridization allows a CSP
solar power plant to also run on a fossil fuel, usually natural gas, when sunlight is not adequate. This
ability to deliver power on demand greatly increases the value of CSP to the owner of the plant.
Solar solve intermittence better than wind

Research in Denmark on wind, which faces similar weather-related intermittence problems, has shown that a
penetration of wind power as high as 10% poses few problems to the reliability of the bulk power supply,
even if wind capacity is not backed up by conventional power sources. And the better the wind forecast, the
smaller the problem—which is why the Danish system operator is investing in its wind forecasting abilities.
For solar power, weather-related intermittence is even less of a problem, because sunshine is easier to
forecast than wind. Further, sunshine in top solar resource areas is very consistent. The challenges
stemming from the weatherrelated intermittence of wind and solar resources may often be overstated.
Solvency – AT: Species DA

No risk to species and solar better for species in the long run
All western solar resources are located in deserts. The Southwest has vast expanses of extremely arid
land that host few animals and plants, mostly congregated along rivers, streams, and arroyos. The land
in between these arteries of life is often barren. It is these hottest and most lifeless parts of America’s
landscape that are most suitable for solar power plant development. Much of this land is administered
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and, unless it contains mineral resources, may be of little
economic value. All power plants occupy land and have an environmental impact, including solar
power plants, which require about 4 to 5 acres per megawatt. The desert ecology deserves protection,
but the best locations for solar power plants are on land for which there might be few other uses.
Solvency – AT: Consistency Issues/SIlicon

CSP solves consistency issues and avoids reliance on PVs
The Economist 08, 2/21, The Power of Concentration; Solar Energy,
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10727996
As their name suggests, CSP plants generate electricity by concentrating the sun's rays, usually to boil
water. The resulting steam drives turbines similar to those found at power plants that run on coal or natural
gas. There are several different designs. The Nevada plant uses long curved mirrors, called parabolic
troughs, to focus light on a tube of fluid running just above them. The Spanish plant uses a forest of
smaller mirrors to focus light on a tower in their midst. Other concepts involve long flat mirrors and
devices resembling satellite dishes. Solar power, of course, does not produce climate-changing
greenhouse gases. But it also excites utilities because it generates the most power just when it is needed:
on hot, sunny days when people turn on air conditioners. And CSP provides a way around the main
drawbacks of solar power from photovoltaic cells. Unlike them, it does not involve expensive silicon
wafers. And some designs provide power round the clock, not just when the sun is shining, by storing
energy in the form of molten salt.
CSP is the most cost-efficient renewable—stores energy better, low cost, cheaper
The key attribute of CSP is that it generates primary energy in the form of heat, which can be stored
20 to 100 times more cheaply than electricity -- and with far greater efficiency. Commercial projects
have already demonstrated that CSP systems can store energy by heating oil or molten salt, which can
retain the heat for hours. Ausra and other companies are working on storing the heat directly with
water in the tubes, which would significantly lower cost and avoid the need for heat exchangers.
Solvency – AT: Transmission Problems
HDVC lines enable long distance electricity transmission

As capacities expand, the existing grid may be upgraded using highly-efficient, high-voltage direct-
current (HVDC) transmission lines and FACTS [Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System]
technologies. TREC proposes the development of an HVDC 'supergrid', designed to integrate with the
existing HVAC transmission lines and reinforce them. With HVDC, transmission losses are about 3%
per 1000 km and there are small AC/DC conversion losses as well. Taking both of these into account,
electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to the UK with less than 10% loss of
power. It is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity for 3000 km or more. . . 90% of the
world's population lives within 2700 km of a desert and could be supplied with solar electricity from
there.
Solvency – AT: High Energy Prices=Conservation

Consumers do not perceive high energy prices- cannot spur conservation
We might expect that higher energy prices would result in lower electricity demand. History, however,
may not provide as much insight as required to determine the impact of retail prices on electricity
demand. This is primarily because retail customers do not in general get price signals at or near the
time that they consume electricity. Their signal is the bills they receive for electricity consumed in the
previous month. Thus, price elasticity for electricity is relatively hard to determine. We can, however,
use observed rates of conservation as a proxy.
CSP Good – Generic

CSP is the best alternative energy
Certainly we will need many different technologies to stop global warming. They include electric cars and
plug-in hybrids, wind turbines and solar photovoltaics, which use sunlight to make electricity from solid-state
materials like silicon semiconductors. Yet after speaking with energy experts and seeing countless
presentations on all forms of clean power, I believe the one technology closest to being a silver bullet
for global warming is the other solar power: solar thermal electric, which concentrates the sun's rays to
heat a fluid that drives an electric generator. It is the best source of clean energy to replace coal and
sustain economic development. I bet that it will deliver more power every year this century than coal with
carbon capture and storage -- for much less money and with far less environmental damage.
CSP solves our energy needs

The Economist 08, 2/21, The Power of Concentration; Solar Energy,
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10727996
As their name suggests, CSP plants generate electricity by concentrating the sun's rays, usually to boil
water. The resulting steam drives turbines similar to those found at power plants that run on coal or natural
gas. There are several different designs. The Nevada plant uses long curved mirrors, called parabolic
troughs, to focus light on a tube of fluid running just above them. The Spanish plant uses a forest of
smaller mirrors to focus light on a tower in their midst. Other concepts involve long flat mirrors and
devices resembling satellite dishes. Solar power, of course, does not produce climate-changing
greenhouse gases. But it also excites utilities because it generates the most power just when it is needed:
on hot, sunny days when people turn on air conditioners. And CSP provides a way around the main
drawbacks of solar power from photovoltaic cells. Unlike them, it does not involve expensive silicon
wafers. And some designs provide power round the clock, not just when the sun is shining, by storing
energy in the form of molten salt.
CSP is the most cost-efficient renewable—stores energy better, low cost, cheaper
The key attribute of CSP is that it generates primary energy in the form of heat, which can be stored
20 to 100 times more cheaply than electricity -- and with far greater efficiency. Commercial projects
have already demonstrated that CSP systems can store energy by heating oil or molten salt, which can
retain the heat for hours. Ausra and other companies are working on storing the heat directly with
water in the tubes, which would significantly lower cost and avoid the need for heat exchangers.
CSP Good – O/W PVs

CSP not vulnerable to silicon shortage
Miller-McCune 08, June 29, Solar Grand Plans Start Answering Basic Questions, http://www.miller-
mccune.com/article/467
Will the technology pan out even with subsidies? Traditional silicon-cell photovoltaic production has been
hit by a shortage of silicon. And while the Solar Grand Plan calls for thin-film photovoltaic cells, not the
currently more efficient silicon cells, other problems could interfere with large-scale production of the
cells. Nine U.S. concentrating plants have been generating 354 megawatts of electricity during the daylight
hours for several years. The first commercial concentrating solar plant with thermal storage is being built
in Spain and will use molten salt to store heat for seven hours. Recently, an American company, Ausra Inc.,
developed a prototype for a concentrating solar/thermal storage system that uses water rather than molten salt as
thermal reservoirs; the company projects generation costs with this system will be about 10 cents per kilowatt-
hour and expects the price will drop further. In a recent paper, David Mills, chairman of the company, estimated
that Ausra’s 177-megawatt plant would produce power at prices comparable to coal-fired plants when his plants
reach the 500-megawatt-to-1-gigawatt scale.
CSP doesn’t rely on silicon

Solar One 08, March 21, Acciona unveils New CSP Power Plant, http://solar1.org/2008/03/21/acciona-unveils-
new-csp-power-plant/
Las Vegas is known for many things, but cutting-edge solar technology has never been one of them. Until
recently, that is. Just a few miles outside of Las Vegas sits a prototype 64MW power plant called “Nevada Solar
One“. Though its official opening was held on February 22, the plant has been up and running since last June
and can generate enough energy to power more than 14,000 homes. In effect, Nevada Solar One uses a
combination of solar and steam to operate; this technology, known as “concentrating solar power” (CSP),
generates electricity by using the sun’s rays to boil water and the resulting steam to power turbines. If
successful, CSP could revolutionize the energy industry. The brainchild of Acciona SA, a Spanish conglomerate
that specializes in civil engineering, construction and infrastructures, Nevada Solar One uses parabolic mirrors
to focus sunlight on a tube of fluid above them. Other CSP plants, including an 11MW facility that opened in
Spain last year, utilize different designs. The plant in Spain uses a dense array of smaller mirrors to focus light
on a water tower at its center. Other variations use long, flat mirrors or devices that look like satellite dishes.
Some even continue to provide power after the sun sets by storing energy in molten salt. CSP is also more cost-
effective than traditional solar installation, in that it doesn’t rely on pricey and energy-intensive silicon panels.
CSP’s future clearly seems sunny. According to the SEIA, another 11,000MW worth of CSP plants are
supposedly in the pipeline thanks to generous federal tax breaks that offset up to 45% of initial costs. If all goes
according to plan, viable solar power may be right around the corner.
CSP better than PV

CNN 08, March 17, All About CSP,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/eco.about.csp/index.html#cnnSTCText
Like photovoltaic systems (PV), CSP relies on the sun to work. But where PV relies on mirrors to directly
translate the sun's rays into energy, CSP uses the sun to heat water, or other liquids, to high
temperatures, whose resulting steam is then used to drive turbines that create electricity. CSP is generally
accepted to be more cost effective than PV, and more practical, as it can power on throughout the night,
without the aid of the sun, thanks to its thermal storage capabilities. (The excess heat is stored as hot
liquid, or is transferred to other materials such as molten salt, or graphite, where it can be used
throughout the night, or on cloudy days.) Whereas PV can work on cloudy days, CSP needs direct sunlight -- and a lot of it,
which means the only practical places on earth CSP plants can really work are in deserts. Deserts typically attract three times as much
sunlight as northern Europe, according to The Guardian. It's why California's Mojave Desert has traditionally been the world centre for CSP,
home to the world's biggest CSP plants, and is attracting companies from Australia, Germany, Israel and Spain to set up there, according to
Business 2.0.

CSP far better in Southwest
Taylor 08, Director of Research for the Solar Electric Power Association, The Cost of Utility-Scale Solar: PV vs
CST, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=52436
Q: On a utility scale, which of these two technologies is cheaper: photovoltaics (PV) or concentrating solar
thermal (CST)? -- Lisa B, Denver, Colorado A: The short answer would be that on an apples-to-apples
comparison in the southwestern United States, concentrating solar thermal parabolic troughs (CST) have a
lower levelized cost of energy (LCOE) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) than photovoltaics (PV) today. Outside of
the broad southwest (which includes 7-8 states), PV is really the only game in town (at least for now, a CST
project in Florida not-withstanding). Looking forward, PV probably has a faster cost reduction curve than CST
and their LCOE will cross paths within the next five years, i.e. PV will become cheaper. Concentrating
photovoltaics (CPV) is the wild card that could also reach parity with CST over the next ten years. The next
obvious question is that given cost parity between the three technologies, which one is preferred by utilities?
The cost of energy is not the only criteria for utilities seeking renewable energy. The ability to generate during
periods of high demand, including into the evening, makes any renewable technology much more valuable.
Additionally, minute-to-minute operating characteristics on the grid, such as the potential for rapid changes in
output, are also important, especially at the utility scale. CST projects can offer both better peak capacity
characteristics, with 6-8 hour thermal storage, as well as a smoother short-term fluctuations. Intermittent
clouds going over a PV system will cause output to spike widely. But with a CST plant, which has thermal
inertia in the heat transfer fluids, an operator can have some warning of the clouds, slow the fluid flow
rate, which increases the fluid temperatures, and ride through short-term cloud events. (For reference, a
wind turbine probably falls somewhere between the two technologies-there is kinetic inertia in the wind and the
turbine blades, which provides a somewhat better short-term profile than PV.) Of course, utility scale storage
technologies for PV are being developed, and in some cases demonstrated. Initially these will provide similar
ride-through capabilities during short-term cloud events, but as the storage technologies scale-up, they could
potentially offer hourly storage into the evening. But right now in the southwest, CST has the cost and
storage advantage, but PV essentially has a geographic monopoly everywhere else.
CSP better than PVs and other energy

The Economist, Sep 13, 2007, Solar Power: Trapping sunlight,
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9804148
Thanks to a confluence of factors—a federal tax credit, an uptick in federal funding for renewable
energy R&D, the enactment of renewable electricity standards in many states and public antipathy
toward greenhouse gas-belching coal-fired power plants—the sun is making a comeback. Concentrating
solar power (CSP) is suddenly looking interesting again. CSP systems capture and focus the sun's rays,
using mirrors, to heat a working fluid to high temperatures and use it to drive a turbine. By contrast,
photovoltaic solar power systems, mostly used on home rooftops, let light interact directly with
semiconductor materials to generate power. As a source of large-scale power CSP is less expensive and
more practical, not least because the technology can deliver power for hours after the sun sets using
thermal storage. America's south-western deserts are an abundant source of sunshine that could meet
the country's power needs several times over without releasing a molecule of carbon dioxide. The first
large CSP plant to be built since the 1980s went online in June in Nevada: it will generate 64 megawatts.
Power companies have already signed long-term agreements with developers such as Stirling Energy
Systems of Phoenix to buy up to 2,300 megawatts of CSP electricity from them. That is paltry compared with
the nation's total electricity capacity of over 1m megawatts: but the Energy Department says at least 7,000
megawatts from CSP plants will be available by 2020. Meanwhile, large international CSP companies, such
as Acciona Energy and Abengoa of Spain, and Solel of Israel, are busily setting up shop in America.
Electricity from the new plant in Nevada costs an estimated 17 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but
projections suggest that CSP power could fall to below ten cents per kWh as the technology improves.
Coal power costs just 2-3 cents per kWh. But that will rise if (as seems likely) regulation eventually
factors in the environmental costs of the carbon coal produces. And CSP purveyors have a powerful
friend: Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate. Mr Reid recently declared that he will
fight to prevent any new coal-fired plants in his state—or even nationwide.

CSP better than wind and PV cells
Peter Fairley, 2/29/08, MIT’s Technology Review, “Solar without the panels,”
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=solar&id=20356&a=, accessed
7/11/2008)
The appeal of solar thermal power is twofold. It is relatively low cost at a large scale: an economic analysis
released last month by Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California's Energy Institute, notes
that solar thermal power will become cost competitive with other forms of power generation decades
before photovoltaics will, even if greenhouse-gas emissions are not taxed aggressively. Solar thermal
developers also say that their power is more valuable than that provided by wind, currently the fastest-
growing form of renewable energy. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind power costs about
8 cents per kilowatt, while solar thermal power costs 13 to 17 cents. But power from wind farms
fluctuates with every gust and lull; solar thermal plants, on the other hand, capture solar energy as
heat, which is much easier to store than electricity. Utilities can dispatch this stored solar energy when
they need it--whether or not the sun happens to be shining. "That's going to be worth a lot of money," says
Terry Murphy, president and chief executive officer of SolarReserve, a Santa Monica, CA, developer of solar
thermal technology. "People are coming to realize that power shifting and 'dispatchability' are key to the
utility's requirements to try to balance their system."
CSP Good – O/W Wind

Solar better than wind
Platts 07 November 9, 2007 Solar power heats up, fueled by incentives and the prospects of utility-scale projects
http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/highlights/2007/epp_gpr_110907.xml
The big problem with wind power is that it is intermittent. Solar power, on the other hand, is predictable. The
sun rises every day and gets hot at the same time of day and the same time of year. The only variable is cloud
cover, and in the Southwest you can count on a sunny, cloudless sky about 350 days a year, said Kellerman.
In short, solar power is almost peak coincident. This gives solar power a big advantage over wind power,
especially when trying to feed the power into the grid. "You can only put so much wind into the grid before
the grid begins to choke. Man shall not live by wind alone," said Kellerman.
CSP Good – No Silicon

CSP not vulnerable to silicon shortage
Miller-McCune 08, June 29, Solar Grand Plans Start Answering Basic Questions, http://www.miller-
mccune.com/article/467
Will the technology pan out even with subsidies? Traditional silicon-cell photovoltaic production has been
hit by a shortage of silicon. And while the Solar Grand Plan calls for thin-film photovoltaic cells, not
the currently more efficient silicon cells, other problems could interfere with large-scale production of
the cells. Nine U.S. concentrating plants have been generating 354 megawatts of electricity during the
daylight hours for several years. The first commercial concentrating solar plant with thermal storage is
being built in Spain and will use molten salt to store heat for seven hours. Recently, an American
company, Ausra Inc., developed a prototype for a concentrating solar/thermal storage system that uses water
rather than molten salt as thermal reservoirs; the company projects generation costs with this system will be
about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour and expects the price will drop further. In a recent paper, David Mills,
chairman of the company, estimated that Ausra’s 177-megawatt plant would produce power at prices
comparable to coal-fired plants when his plants reach the 500-megawatt-to-1-gigawatt scale.
CSP Good – Grid Issues

Solar Energy may soon cost the same as gas-burning sources, will become a more integral
part of energy
Michael Kenellos, Staff Writer, 5/11/2007, Shrinking The Cost for Solar Power, http://news.cnet.com/Shrinking-
the-cost-for-solar-power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html
One of the big problems with solar power has been that it costs more than electricity generated by
conventional means. But some experts think that, under certain circumstances, the premium for solar
power can be erased, without subsidies or dramatic technical breakthroughs. A sufficiently large solar
thermal power plant (also called concentrated solar power, or CSP) could potentially generate
electricity at about the same cost as electricity from a conventional gas-burning power plant, experts
say. It's not easy. The plant would also have to come with a large energy storage system, be built next to others and be located close to
users. To date, no one has completed a facility that comports to all of these parameters, said Fred Morse, an energy analyst who has
studied the issue. "Solar thermal is available at much more attractive prices than solar photovoltaic. The land mass isn't huge, but it does
take a while to build these," said Stephan Dolezalek, a managing partner and co-head of the clean tech practice at venture firm Vantage
Point Venture Partners, an investor in Bright Source Energy, which builds solar thermal plants and components. Both Dolezalek and
Jiang Lin, who heads up the China Energy Group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said that solar thermal is likely the
most promising technology in the entire alternative-energy field right now. When asked when solar thermal can hit parity, Lin responded
"now." Thermal by the numbers Conventionally generated electricity ranges between 5 and 18 cents per kilowatt hour (the amount of
money to get a kilowatt of power for an hour) but in most places it's below 10 cents, according to the Energy Information Agency. Solar
thermal costs around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour, according to statistics from Schott, a German company that makes solar thermal
equipment. A solar thermal plant would need a facility to store the heat harvested in the day by its sunlight-concentrating mirrors so that
the heat could be used to generate electricity at night. "You need the kind of system that can run in the evening," Morse said. At some
sites, such as Nevada Solar One, excess heat is stored in molten salt and released at night to run the turbine. The plant, ideally, should be
capable of generating about 300 megawatts of electricity. Those plants can churn out electricity at about 13 cents a kilowatt. That's still a
relatively high price, so utilities would need to group two, three or more 300-megawatt plants together to share operational resources,
Morse said. "They could share control rooms or spare parts," he said. That would knock the price closer to 11 cents a kilowatt hour.
"Under 10 cents is sort of the magic line," he said. Dolezalek puts it another way: the plants need to be around 500 megawatts in size.
Most solar thermal plants right now aren't that big. The 22-year-old thermal plant in California's Mojave Desert is 354 megawatts. Utility
company Southern California Edison is erecting a 500-megawatt plant scheduled to open in 2009. By 2014, solar thermal plants located
in the Southwest could crank out nearly 3 gigawatts of power, estimated Travis Bradford of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable
Development, a nonprofit based in Cambridge, Mass. That's enough for about 1 million homes. Costs can then be reduced
further by building the plants close to consumers. It costs about $1.5 million per mile for transmission
lines, according to statistics from Acciona Solar Power, which owns solar thermal plants. Solar thermal plants
work best in arid deserts that get little rainfall. Since some of the fastest-growing cities in the world are
located in sun belts, that's less of a problem than it used to be. But getting to that point isn't easy. Land-use hearings
and permits can drag on for years while construction costs rise. The amount of land required can be an issue too: the 354-megawatt plant
in California occupies 1,000 acres. Larger plants would need more land, while smaller plants result in higher costs per kilowatt hour.
Even if all of these factors could be completely optimized, solar thermal power plants would likely not produce electricity at a level that
would compete with coal plants. Coal plants, however, will likely be hit with carbon taxes in the near future, which will make solar
thermal more competitive. Still, at less than 10 cents a kilowatt, solar thermal would be competitive with electricity from gas-powered
plants. Utilities will also likely work hard to lower the costs of solar thermal in the coming decades, Morse added. Utilities are under
mandates to increase their renewable energy sources. Citizen groups often complain about wind turbines and the wind doesn't blow at a
constant, predictable rate. Several companies are intent on tapping heat from under the surface of the earth to generate power.
Geothermal power, however, works best only in certain locations. "There is an enough flat, unproductive land in the U.S. to power the
U.S.," Morse said. "We just don't have the wires to get there. Eisenhower built the national highway system. Some president will build
the national grid."
CSP key to utilities

Platts 07, November 9, Solar power heats up, fueled by incentives and the prospects of utility-scale projects
The prospects of solar power have also been bolstered by concern about global warming. "There is a growing
sense among utilities that their options are narrowing, getting riskier," said Fred Morse, president of Morse
Associates Inc. Utilities are concerned about whether or not they will they be able to pass on the costs of
potential carbon taxes to their customers. "They need this [solar] option, but what they really need is CSP
with storage," said Morse, referring to concentrating solar power. When most people think of solar power,
they think of solar panels on a roof. Photovoltaic panels convert sunlight directly into electricity. But most
utility-scale solar projects use CSP technology, not PV.

Solar key to meeting peak power demands
Climate Wire 08, A solar-motivated land rush hits the southwestern deserts, June 24th, 2008
http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=1314
“What’s beautiful about these plants is not only do they produce carbon-free electricity, but they generate
firm, dispatchable peak power,” Resch said, explaining that they are capable of meeting power demands at
peak times of use, such as early afternoons on hot summer days when air conditioners are fully on. Wind-
generated electricity, on the other hand, usually peaks at night, when demands for power are relatively low,
and there is often no way to store it for the next day.
CSP Good – Ecosystems

Expanded solar power key to ending dirty energy
San Diego Union-Tribune 08, Federal Agency Flooded With Developer Proposals, June 3, 2008,
Ricker sees clean-energy projects in the California desert as a necessary step as the United States tries to
break away from dirty power sources such as petroleum and coal, which are linked to global warming. “The
good outweighs the fact that some small portion of the desert may not be available for all the kinds of things
that desert is used for,” Ricker said.
Desert power plants disrupt key ecosystems

San Diego Union-Tribune 08, Federal Agency Flooded With Developer Proposals, June 3, 2008,
For some conservationists, power projects such as Ivanpah fall into the same category as nuclear fuel dumps,
sewage sludge treatment plants, military bases and landfills that various entities have proposed for desert
lands. “Our take has been from day one, 'Here we go again. Here is where we can do everything out in the
desert that we don't want to do in our own backyards in the city,' ” said Terry Weiner, Imperial County
conservation coordinator for the San Diego-based Desert Protective Council. Weiner and others worry that
utilities will use alternative-energy projects to justify major new transmission lines such as San Diego Gas &
Electric's controversial Sunrise Powerlink project.
CSP plants cause less ecological effects, take less land

Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik 08, Frontier Group, Spring, “On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight
Against Global Warming,” Environment America Research and Policy Center,
http://www.solarsanantonio.org/documents/OnTheRise--TXSolarThermalReport.pdf accessed 7-8-2008
While concentrating solar power does require significant amounts of land, it is actually more land-
efficient than some other forms of power generation. For example, a CSP plant the same size as Lake
Mead, the 250-square-mile reservoir created by construction of the 2,000 MW Hoover Dam, would
produce roughly 13 times more electricity per year. America’s current electricity demand could be
satisfied with solar thermal power plants on a 100-mile-square area of the desert Southwest (10,000 square
miles)—an area equal to 9 percent the size of Nevada. By contrast, more than 9,000 square miles of the
United States has been disturbed by coal mining over the nation’s history. And at least 1,644 square miles are
disturbed by current mining operations (based on an incomplete estimate of impacts in only 19 of 32 coal-
mining states and tribal entities). In contrast to CSP, the impact of coal mining on land is severe and
often irreversible, and includes other environmental impacts—such as water pollution and the disposal
of hazardous coal mining wastes—that can occur far from the mine site. CSP plants will have an
impact on the environment and wildlife wherever they are sited, and these impacts must be taken into
account in siting decisions. Proposed CSP plants should be rigorously evaluated for their
environmental impacts—including both the impact on the local environment and the environmental
benefits produced from averted emissions of global warming pollutants. Continued technological
advances in CSP systems hold the potential to produce more energy from smaller areas of land, and
thereby reduce the potential for land-use conflicts in the future.
CSP Good – Ecosystems/Waste

CSP doesn’t have environmental impact
The Guardian 07, 2/6/07, Kept in the dark,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/06/thesecretsecureenergysolut, accessed 7-8-2008
Unlike nuclear, which can only survive with huge public subsidy, CSP has the capability of unsubsidised
competitiveness and unlike nuclear, it is carbon-free, clean and safe. It uses solar energy, which is free,
renewable and infinite in supply. CSP has none of the unresolved dangerous waste issues of nuclear,
nor would it be at risk from terrorist attack.
CSP Good – Decreases Energy Prices

Increasing CSP energy output drops energy prices
CSP costs have already begun to decline as production increases. According to a 2008 Sandia National
Laboratory presentation, costs are projected to drop to 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour when capacity
exceeds 3,000 MW. The world will probably have double that capacity by 2013. The price drop will
likely occur even if the current high prices for raw materials like steel and concrete continue (prices
that also affect the competition, like wind, coal and nuclear power).
Solar power will become cheaper than fossil fuels

David Weight 08, Associate Consultant at Davis Langdon, 6/6/08, “Open Mike: Sun Seeking,” Building
Sustainability, http://www.building.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?sectioncode=31&storycode=3115322&c=3, accessed 7-
8-2008)
The cost per kW/h of coal is less than nuclear power (which has benefited from hidden subsidies) and as oil
prices have risen it has now become cheaper than oil. However, while it may be cheaper, carbon
sequestration technology is by far our dirtiest fuel in terms of carbon emissions. Furthermore, the costs for
solar power are expected to drop, while oil and gas costs are bound to rise, especially since supply
capability is expected to drop
CSP Good – Decreases Energy Prices

More solar snowballs- creates economies of scale dropping costs
In recent months several deals for utility-scale solar power projects have moved forward, and developers are
hoping that the number of solar projects under development will bring economies of scale to bear and
push down the costs of building solar projects, making them competitive with thermal peaking power
plants.
CSP Good – Tr/off with PV

CSP and PV tech in direct competition for utility investment
Martin LaMonica 08, Senior Writer at CNET News Covering Green Technologies, May 14, 2008, IBM Replants
Chip-Cooling Tech in Solar Farms, http://news.cnet.com/greentech/?keyword=%22concentrated+photovoltaics%22
SolFocus, which we first covered when it was spun out of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in 2006, is one
several companies pursuing concentrated solar photovoltaics, where mirrors or lenses focus light onto
solar cells to produce more electricity. Tracking systems that mount the solar arrays follow the sun during
the day to maximize light input. The technology competes with solar thermal where parabolic troughs or
dishes are also used to concentrate light. But instead of producing electricity from solar cells, the heat
from the sun is used to produce steam which turns an electrical generator. (Click here for an FAQ and
photo gallery on concentrated photovoltaics, or CPV.) Utilities are betting on these approaches, along with
solar farms equipped with hundreds or thousands of light-tracking traditional solar panels, to make
solar power plants.
CSP Good – Modeling
CSP has potential modeling effect

Alden Meyer 07, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Power Has too Many Negatives, March 30, USA Today,
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/nuclear_power_h.html, accessed 7-8-2008
CSP technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985, and a half-million
Californians use it. Furthermore, CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP technology works best in hot deserts. But countries without deserts can still enjoy the benefits of
CSP because solar electricity can be transmitted over very long distances. A recent report from the
American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the southwestern states of the USA "could
provide nearly 7,000 Giga-Watts of capacity, or about seven times the current total U.S. electric
capacity." In the "Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power," a report
commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa
and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the
cost of transmission.
CSP Good – solves warming
Renewable power plants key to reducing CO2

SEIA.pdf
Renewable power plants improve our environment, reducing greenhouse gases and cleaning our air. (For
example, our two solar projects in California, if built out to their full potential of 1,750 MW, will displace 1.8
million tons of coal consumption and reduce CO2 emissions by 400 tons per year compared to a coal-fired
plant of the same size.)
PV Good – Grid Issues

Solar Power Helps Energy Grid
The Energy Grid – PV has an elegant design which allows it to be scaled and placed directly where
power is consumed, or where the energy grid needs to shoreup capacity and energy for evolving
demand. It is mobile and can be relocated with ease. In addition, it does not need to transport or use
combustible fuels from divergent regions of the world; it uses a natural, abundant and free fuel source –
the Sun. Because of this it can guarantee energy at times when demand is at its peak – seasonal and
cyclical variations are well matched. All of this makes photovoltaics a sensible and secure candidate for
enabling energy assurance. The grid can be designed to be redundant with a fixed energy price, as
opposed to the shaky centralized infrastructure that is dependent upon unreliable fuel sources and is
open to disruption from disasters either natural or manmade. Just consider how differently we would
respond to a hurricane if every fourth house had enough power for a refrigerator and some tools.
People could get right to work on recovery and not wait on ice. Medicines and food would not spoil. When
the grid is gone, solar can save the day.
PVs solve energy inconsistencies – power close to energy demand means less transmission
problems
DOE 08, “Why PV is Important to the Economy,” 7/11/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_economy.html
As Americans, we're clear about our preferred energy future — we want plentiful and reliable sources of
clean energy at reasonable prices. More and more, our nation's economic health and security depends on
reliable, clean, abundant, and affordable energy. And by 2020, our already voracious appetite for
energy is projected to increase by about 32%. Although solar electricity (also known as photovoltaics or
PV) is not the sole answer to our myriad energy challenges, this renewable energy option can make an
important contribution to the economy of the United States and the world. Electricity from the sun is a
versatile technology that can be used for applications from the very small to the very large, from grid-
connected systems to grid-independent systems, to hot water, space and industrial process heating, and power
plants. Increasingly, in a competitive market, the U.S. electrical grid will come to rely on distributed
energy resources. The modular nature of the technology enables us to construct distributed electricity-
generating systems in increments as demands grow, to improve supply reliability, and to moderate
distribution and transmission costs. In addition, many regions of the United States are becoming limited
by transmission capacities and local emission controls, but solar electric power systems can be easily
sited at the point of use with no environmental impact. And because sunlight is widely available, we can
build geographically diverse solar electric systems that are less vulnerable to international energy
politics, volatile fossil-fuel-based markets, and transmission failures. Distributed energy technologies
are expected to supply an increasing share of the electricity market to improve power quality and
reliability problems that have caused power outages and cost the United States economy $119 billion a
year We have only to remember August 14, 2003, when more than 50 million people in eight U.S. states and
parts of Canada were left in the dark in the biggest blackout in the history of North America, to realize the
potential power of adding solar electricity to our energy mix (see below and, The Washington Post for
examples).
PV Good – Metro Areas

PV is better suited for urban use
DOE 08, “Photovoltaics,” 1/25/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html, accessed 7/8/08
The U.S. Department of Energy works to provide clean, reliable, affordable solar electricity for the nation
through its research programs in photovoltaic (PV) energy systems. Whether you are a student, builder,
consumer, engineer, or researcher, there is something here for you. Photovoltaic technology makes use of the
abundant energy in the sun, and it has little impact on our environment. Photovoltaics can be used in a wide
range of products, from small consumer items to large commercial solar electric systems. Our goal is to
ensure that photovoltaic energy systems make an important contribution to the energy needs of our nation
and the world. With PV, one size does not fit all. That's one of its main advantages. A PV system can be
constructed to any size in response to the energy needs at hand. And a PV system can be enlarged or
moved as these energy needs change. For instance, homeowners can add modules every few years as their
energy usage and financial resources grow. And ranchers can use mobile trailer-mounted pumping systems
for watering cattle that are rotated around different fields. In urban applications, PV can eliminate the need
for costly trenches in streets. PV can be an outstanding choice for urban areas where grid power is
unavailable or grid connections would be very costly or cumbersome. Lighting, irrigation, median
sprinklers, water pumping, school and hospital warning signs, communications, and emergency
services are just a few of the many successful uses for PV in our cities and towns.
PV Good – Generic
Photovoltaic technology has the greatest potential to replace natural gas, fossil fuels and
other sources of energy as the most common and cost effective energy source
Miguel Mendonca 07, Researcher-World Future Council, “Feed-in-Tariffs: accelerating the deployment of
renewable energy”, p. xi, books.google.com
In my of country wind power has been making particularly rapid progress on the back of this legislation, but
I would argue that Phototoltaics (PV) is ultimately the most promising of all energy technologies, giving
us the best option to overcome global energy crises. Currently, It only generates a small proportion of total
renewable energy supply, much less than wind, hydropower or biomass. Photovoltaic energy could soon
become the 'prima donna’ of renewable energy technologies. Solar energy radiation is the only primary
source directly exploitable at every place on Earth. It therefore offers everyone free access to energy
and, moreover, to electricity, that most modern and multifaceted form of energy services. Thus PV has
the potential to facilitate energy freedom for everybody - free from discrimination, artificial national
borders and administrative hurdles, and free from dependency on energy monopolies. It bears by far
the biggest potential - larger than that of all other renewable energy sources, larger than anything to
which fossil fuels and nuclear power could ever aspire.
Solar energy can replace natural gas and other fossil fuels and solve warming for numerous
reasons
Green Power No Date, “Solar Power,” http://www.montanagreenpower.com/solar, Accessed July 8th 2008
Solar energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels for many reasons:
It is clean energy. Even when the emissions related to solar cell manufacturing are counted,
photovoltaic generation produces less than 15 percent of the carbon dioxide from a conventional coal-
fired power plant. Using solar energy to replace the use of traditional fossil fuel energy sources can
prevent the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.
Using solar energy to supply a million homes with energy would reduce CO2 emissions by 4.3 million tons
per year, the equivalent of removing 850,000 cars from the road.
Solar energy uses fewer natural resources than conventional energy sources. Using energy from
sunlight can replace the use of stored energy in natural resources such as petroleum, natural gas, and
coal. Energy industry researchers estimate that the amount of land required for photovoltaic (PV) cells to
produce enough electricity to meet all U.S. power needs is less than 60,000 square kilometers, or roughly 20
percent of the area of Arizona.
Solar energy is a renewable resource. Some scientists and industry experts estimate that renewable
energy sources, such as solar, can supply up to half of the world's energy demand in the next 50 years,
even as energy needs continue to grow.
Solar Power is environmentally friendly, especially when compared to alternatives

The Ozone Hole Organization 2008; Non-profit organization;
http://www.solcomhouse.com/solarpower.htm
Because they burn no fuel and have no moving parts, PV systems are clean and silent. This is especially
important where the main alternatives for obtaining power and light are from diesel generators and
kerosene lanterns. As we become more aware of "greenhouse gases" and their detrimental effects on
our planet, clean energy alternatives like PV become more important than ever.
PV Good – Generic
PVs pay for themselves
DOE 08, “Why PV is Important to You,” 7/11/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_you.html, accessed 7/8/08
State-of-the-art PV modules are now available in a variety of colors and styles, allowing designers to use
them as aesthetic elements built right into roofs, skylights, awnings, entryways, and facades. Today's
modules can even be specified to transmit a percentage — usually 80% to 90% — of natural light.
Mixed with nontransmissive modules, these systems create a pleasant environment inside the building,
helping to ventilate and heat the building at the same time. When PV systems are properly integrated
into a building "envelope," they don't just provide power and light, they contribute to the structure itself. This
relatively new concept, called "building-integrated PV," is taking hold. Think of it this way — since a
building has to have windows, these windows can also prodce power. It makes financial sense, too,
because the savings on conventional structural materials often offset the cost of the PV materials.
PV meets demand and challenges of energy service providers

DOE 08, “Why PV is Important to You,” 7/11/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_you.html, accessed 7/8/08
When demand for electricity is high, such as during a heat wave when everyone's air conditioner is running,
utilities must fire up their "peaking" power plants to meet the demand for just a few hours a day. These
peaking plants are expensive to operate, and the utility's electric distribution system must be sized to handle
these high, albeit short-term, loads. When a utility installs grid-connected PV arrays, the PV-generated
electricity is used directly to help supply a building's peak demand; this is often called "peak load
shaving." Coincidentally for photovoltaics, the need to meet peak loads arises when the sun is shining
the brightest! Another important benefit of PV systems is that they can produce power near the point of use
— a concept we call "distributed generation." Before the grid becomes overloaded, then, PV systems step
in to provide electricity to individual homes and buildings.
PV Good – Environment
No Air Pollution
DOE 08, “Why PV is Important to the Environment,” 7/11/08,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_environment.html, accessed 7/8/08
Solar electric systems—also known as photovoltaic (PV)systems—have very little impact on the
environment, making them one of the cleanest power-generating technologies available. While they're
operating, PV systems produce no air pollution, hazardous waste, or noise, and they require no
transportable fuels. Because of these benefits, PV can play an important role in mitigating environmental
problems. Ground-level air pollution has severe health and environmental effects and contributes to visibility
problems in scenic areas. Traditional power sources are the largest contributor to this pollution; in
contrast, solar power produces no air pollution.
Safe and Clean Production

DOE 08, “Clean Energy Payback,” 7/14/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/clean_energy_payback.html,
accessed 7/8/08
In terms of worker safety and health, simple protective and administrative measures are used
effectively to protect those who produce PV systems. In terms of the environment, the PV production
process produces small amounts of waste materials, but this is minimal relative to the emissions from
conventional energy sources. Most of today's PV cells consist of crystalline or multicrystalline silicon.
Silica particles can be released in the mining and refining stage, but these present a hazard only to
workers—one is easily avoided. Silicon PV module production can include fluorine, chlorine, nitrates,
isopropanol, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, silica particles, and solvents.
According to a report from Utrecht University, "Estimated air emission is maximally 0.16 [kilograms of
fluorine] and 430 [kilograms of chlorine] per [1000 megawatt-hours] of electricity supplied by PV modules,
which is orders of magnitude smaller than the corresponding emissions of a coal plant." According to the
same report, neutralizing etching and texturing solutions and flue gases can yield water-borne fluorides
and chlorides. But these are still three to five times smaller per unit of electricity than those produced
by a coal-fired plant. Alternative etching, texturing, and purification methods can reduce those emissions.
Using sulfur-containing carbon sources in the reduction of silica also produces negligible amounts of sulfur
dioxide and carbon dioxide. Solvents and alcohols used in the process could contribute to ozone and smog if
they are emitted into the atmosphere. But EPA regulations limit the amount of such chemicals that can be
released into the air, and simple emission controls can filter out those pollutants in a plant's exhaust
system.
Solves Air Pollution

DOE 08, “PV and Air Pollution,” 7/14/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/air_pollution.html, accessed 7/8/08
Burning fossil fuels generates a number of air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, particulate
matter (soot), and toxic materials such as mercury. In contrast, PV systems produce no air pollution while
operating. So, using PV systems can help reduce the amount of air pollution generated from electric
power production. Electric power generation from fossil fuels produces about two-thirds of U.S. sulfur
dioxide emissions, and about one-quarter of nitrous oxide emissions, making them the chief cause of acid
rain. Smog makes it difficult for some people to breathe, and it reduces visibility. Although smog is a
problem primarily in cities, nitrous oxides can travel a great distance before reacting to form ozone. This
means that it can create pollution problems throughout a region. According to the EPA, fossil-fueled power
plants produce particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Combined with smog, another type of fine
particle, they are proven, serious health threats. Particulate emissions also contribute to haze and cause
visibility problems throughout the country, including the nation's national parks and wilderness areas.
Burning fossil fuels like coal generates a large amount of toxic chemicals that are emitted into the air. Coal
contains minute quantities of mercury and other heavy metals that are carried out of the smokestacks along
with the combustion products. Airborne mercury can also find its way into water supplies, where it can build
up in fish and animals that eat fish, thereby presenting a neurological threat to people. PV Systems have no
need to burn fuels, thus not producing dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions that are the primary cause
of acid rain, smog, mercury poisoning etc.
PV Good – Cost
In spite of high costs, PVs pay for themselves
Adam Aston 08, Energy and Environment Editor, 2/23/2008, “Are Solar Voltaics Just Too Costly,” Business
Week, http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/02/is_solar_photov.html, Accessed
7/8/08/
Such criticism are nothing new. In any rank ordering of the cost effectiveness of renewable technologies now
being built, solar PV tops out as most expensive. Yet its proponents maintain that government subsidies
are justified. The public money will speed the solar PV’s evolution and lower its price. This has happened.
Improving economies of scale in manufacturing, lower installation costs, and chips which do a better
job of converting more of the sun’s photons in electricity have dramatically solar PV costs. The
industry has also grenerated millions of jobs and stabilizes the costs of electricity for those who use it.
And to make the point, at the PiperJaffray solar investment conference in New York in February, influential
companies have announced that it will cut installed solar system costs to meet equal retail prices by
2012.
Good Cost and Market Development

MTC 08, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, Renewable Energy Trust, “Benefits and Barriers for
Photovoltaics,” 2/5/08, http://www.mtpc.org/cleanenergy/solar_info/benefit.htm, accessed 7/9/08
The main factors behind the high cost of photovoltaics are twofold. First, photovoltaic panels are relatively
expensive to produce. Second, the market for photovoltaics has been relatively small until recent years, so
photovoltaic production has not achieved the economy of scale necessary for truly low costs. Both of these
factors are gradually changing. Demand has increased over the past thirty years, and much research and
development work has been done to increase the efficiency and lower the costs of photovoltaic systems.
In fact, costs have fallen dramatically since the 1970s when photovoltaic panels first appeared on the
consumer market. In 1975, the average cost for photovoltaic modules was $30 per watt, or $30 per the unit of
electricity a panel could produce. By the 1990s, this cost had dropped to approximately $5 per watt.
Technological developments that improve efficiency and lower manufacturing costs are expected to
continue reducing overall costs. As these costs fall, it is expected that demand will continue to increase
due to the other benefits of photovoltaic systems. There is no set date when photovoltaics are predicted
to become competitive with utility power, but some sources predict it will happen sometime within the
next 10-20 years. If advanced technologies emerge from research and development that cause a
significant drop in prices, this timeframe could be shortened even further. The other area where costs can be
incurred is in installation of a photovoltaic system, as multiple components are needed to help photovoltaic panels transfer their
electricity to an end use. In many cases, these components can double the cost of a photovoltaic system. However, much of this
additional cost can be reduced as installation experience increases within the building trades and as new methods are developed
for installing and connecting photovoltaics to their end use. There are several financial benefits linked to
installed photovoltaic systems. The primary benefit is the possibility of reduced electric bills and the
potential for net metering, where excess electricity from a photovoltaic system can be sold back to the
utility. While these benefits do not currently balance out the initial costs of a photovoltaic installation, they
can help in reducing these costs.
PV Bad – Cannot Lead Solar Industry

PV cannot set the market standard for solar energy – can’t immediately solve grid
problems, government support is lacking and misplaced, and price parity won’t happen,
delaying consumer investment
Denis Du Bois 07, Editor of Energy Priorities Magazine, “Solar America Initiative Starts Not with a Bang, But a
Whimper,” 3/26/07, http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/03/solar_america_opinion.php accessed 7/8/08
For a few of the emerging solar companies on the list, being elected for funding is a big moment --
although the publicity might end up being worth more than the federal funds. For potential users of
photovoltaics, this announcement isn't as exciting as it sounds, for a variety of reasons. First, put the
amount in perspective. The total funding, $168 million, is equal to about two months' U.S. financial aid to
Columbia. California committed $3.2 billion for solar power installation rebates alone, under the California
Solar Initiative. John Mizroch, DOE Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, emphasized in an interview that the
funding was up to $168 million. The actual funding is subject to negotiation with participants, and to
appropriation from Congress, a process that has an abysmal track record. Whatever amount is
appropriated will be spread over three years. DOE expects the first year's funding to be $51 million. At the end
of that year, the White House (and the DOE) will change hands. Andy Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, highlighted DOE's selection of 13 industry-led solar technology
development projects. He says the recipients will include 50 companies, 14 universities, 3 nonprofits, and 2
national labs. That's 69 entities, for an average of $2.4 million each. Some of the participating companies are
already claiming in the media that their awards will be far more than the average. For the larger recipients --
GE Energy, BP Solar, Dow Chemical, and Boeing -- even several million dollars doesn't go very far. BP
Alternative Energy has an $8 billion commitment in capital from BP over the next ten years, and that has been
criticized as being miniscule. The SAI funding will be spread across a range of technologies, from utility-grade
concentrating solar power, to building-integrated PV, to plug-ready residential units. If projects are selected
from each of the announced fields, then no single technology will receive sufficient funding to push it very
far ahead of where it is today. What concerns me most is that this program may slow current adoption of
PV. To put so little into solar research, and to publicize it so actively, may backfire. Potential users of
solar power may decide to wait for the program to achieve its goal of grid cost parity, rather than
investing in PV now. We need renewable energy adoption today, if not for the sake of our overloaded grid,
then for the protection of our deteriorating environment. Not according to Dr. Dan Arvizu, the head of the
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He called for a "sustained commitment" in a
keynote at the Power-Gen Renewables conference earlier this month. He said that in the United States "we
care about energy when the price at the gas pump is high, and we don't care about energy when the price
at the gas pump comes down and is within our tolerance range. This is what's wrong with our policy.
What we need to do is start thinking more aggressively." Michael Eckhart, President of the American
Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE), told the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and
Innovation last week that U.S. companies are barely scratching the surface of the potential for wind, solar,
geothermal, biomass, tidal and other renewable sources of energy. "The U.S. needs to accelerate its research
and development for renewable energy tenfold and in the process strike a balance between near-term needs with
investments in longer-term research and science that will produce the next generation of technologies. This way,
the U.S. can compete for global leadership in those technologies," Eckhart said.
PV Bad – Environment
Has been no recycling process created
G.J.M Phylipsen 07, Professor in the Department of Science, Technology and Society at Utrecht University,
8/6/07, “Summery ‘Environmental life-cycle assessment of multi-crystalline silicone solar cell modules”, Report #
95057, http://www.chem.uu.nl/nws/www/publica/95057.htm, accessed 7/8/08
An important problem in the field of photovoltaic (PV) technology is that there has been no
process specifically designed to remove and recycle the metals in an environmentally benign fashion.
The range of metals which can be present in thin film PV devices may include cadmium, copper, lead,
gallium, indium, selenium and tellurium. The substrates they must be separated from are glass, plastic or
similar low cost substrates.
Harmful Disposal of PV causing environmental harms

DOE 08, “PV Panel Disposal and Recycling,” 7/14/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/panel_disposal.html,
accessed 7/8/08
By about 2020, however, this growing industry will produce a growing PV waste stream. Some modules,
however, could be classified as hazardous waste, a situation that is prompting the PV industry to develop
recycling processes for modules. Because PV systems are widely dispersed, and because each system has
relatively small amounts of semiconductor material per cell, recycling PV will be a challenging task. Because
some toxic chemicals are used in making PV panels, disposal at the end of their useful life is another
potential environmental issue. Now, only a small volume of PV panels is disposed of each year, so this is
currently a minor issue. But the industry is already looking ahead toward recycling methods for future PV
panels. Of course, no form of energy production is completely free of effects on the environment. As with
any consumer product, the raw materials for PV systems must be shipped to factories, and completed
products must be shipped from factories to consumers. In many cases, components may also be shipped from
one factory to another for assembly. Transporting PV materials, components, and final products uses some
energy and produces some air pollution and greenhouse gases, in addition to contributing slightly to traffic
and noise problems. Some energy is also used in manufacturing PV systems. However, efforts to minimize
manufacturing costs and increase output are also reducing the amount of energy used to manufacture each PV
system.
PV fail, trigger blackouts – weather, vandals, criminals, terrorist attacks

DOE 06, “Why PV is Important to Energy Assurance,” 1/5/06,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_energy_assurance.html, accessed 7/8/08
The nation's current energy production and distribution infrastructure faces a number of physical
threats because of its age and complexity, its potential vulnerability to national disasters, and acts of
terrorism. Building and maintaining the systems that handle electricity, water, communications, and
transportation are costly in terms of both dollars and time. Parts deteriorate naturally, maintenance
can be inadequate, and systems are often complex and interdependent, relying on each other to
function properly. All these factors come into play during major disruptions. Moreover, systems designed
for the expected loads and capacities of the 20th century are often inadequate for today's greater needs,
leading to failures such as power outages. Depending on where you live, natural disasters might
include hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, blizzards, or earthquakes. These unpredictable
catastrophes can damage many of the components of our energy infrastructure. Think of ice storms that
snap power lines, and earthquakes that cripple power plants. Human error can also be a culprit. Failure to
monitor and maintain the proper pressure within a pipeline system used to transport oil, natural gas, or
water, for example, can damage valves and gauges, requiring shutdowns that disrupt optimal flow. And, as
we've witnessed in several tragic events, it is an unfortunate fact of life that disasters can be intentional.
Threats range from juvenile vandalism, to criminal sabotage by an individual, to well-planned terrorist
attacks aimed at wreaking large-scale political, social, or economic havoc.
PV Bad – Environment
PV create hazardous chemicals
G.J.M Phylipsen 07, Professor in the Department of Science, Technology and Society at Utrecht University,
8/6/07, “Summery ‘Environmental life-cycle assessment of multi-crystalline silicone solar cell modules”, Report #
95057, http://www.chem.uu.nl/nws/www/publica/95057.htm, accessed 7/8/08
A number of substances are considered to pose acute and/or chronic hazards on the work force in PV
industry, e.g. etchants, acids, solvents etc. Incidental releases could result in the presence of more or less
hazardous substances (e.g. silane, carbon monoxide, ammonia and silica particles) on the work floor.
Safety management will have to be sufficient to take care of these risks Emissions in the PV module's life
cycle are at this moment largely limited to the production phase. Environmentally relevant substances which
may be released in multicrystalline silicon PV module production are fluorine, chlorine, nitrate, isopropanol,
SO2, CO2, respirable silica particles and solvents. Fluorine and chlorine may be emitted to the air as a
component of dust particles by the best case silicon purification technology. The estimated air emission
is maximally 0.16 kg F and 430 kg Cl per TWhe of electricity supplied by PV modules, which is orders of
magnitude smaller than the corresponding emissions of a coal plant. Fluorine and chlorine are also emitted
to the water in all three cases (1,800 kg F and 89,000 kg Cl per TWhe in the base case), resulting from
neutralization of etching and texturing solutions and flue gases. Fluorine and chlorine contribute to the
human toxicity, as does nitrate, which stems from neutralizing acids used in etching and texturing. Water-
borne F- and Cl-emissions of base case PV technology are significant but still 3-5 times smaller than for a
coal plant. The non-energy-related 1 The emissions of SO2, NOx and CO2 can be distinguished into energy-
related, i.e. resulting from energy use, and non-energy-related emissions, i.e. resulting from the production
process itself. emissions of SO2 (in worst and base case) are caused by using sulphur-containing carbon
sources in the reduction of silica. These carbon sources are also responsible for the non-energy-related
emissions of CO2. However, the non-energy-related SO2 and CO2 emissions are small compared to the
energy-related emissions of these gases. Silica particles can be released in the mining and refining
stage. If they are small enough to be inhaled they may cause the lung disease silicosis. Emissions of
solvents and alcohols contribute to photochemical ozone formation and both direct (the solvents itself)
and indirect (ozone) respiratory problems. Comparing the three cases to each other with regard to process
emissions the influence of decreasing wafer thickness, increasing wafer size and use of a different process for
producing high purity silicon is clear (especially for CO2, SO2 and Si powder emissions, SiC, mineral oil).
PV modules found to contain toxic chemicals

DOE 08, “Clean Energy Payback,” 7/14/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/clean_energy_payback.html,
accessed 7/8/08
Besides the semiconductor material, PV modules also use palladium and silver or nickel or nickel
chromium (and possibly tin) for metallic contacts and usually a tin/lead solder for electrical connections.
Of these materials, the one of greatest concern is lead, a toxic chemical that can affect mental
development in children.
PV manufacturing process
DOE 08, “PV Panel Disposal and Recycling,” 7/14/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/panel_disposal.html,
accessed 7/8/08
Of course, no form of energy production is completely free of effects on the environment. As with any
consumer product, the raw materials for PV systems must be shipped to factories, and completed products
must be shipped from factories to consumers. In many cases, components may also be shipped from one
factory to another for assembly. Transporting PV materials, components, and final products uses some
energy and produces some air pollution and greenhouse gases, in addition to contributing slightly to
traffic and noise problems. Some energy is also used in manufacturing PV systems.
PV Bad – Cost Efficiency

PVs are expensive and suck-up a lot of government subsidies – they are net-inefficient
renewable tech
Adam Aston 08, Energy and Environment Editor, 2/23/2008, “Are Solar Voltaics Just Too Costly,” Business
Week, http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/02/is_solar_photov.html, Accessed
7/8/08/
Then this week, a study harshly critical of the cost-effectiveness of solar photovoltaic (PV) energy has put a
scare into the industry. According to a new study by Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of
California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute, current solar PV
technology is not economic: “We are throwing money away by installing the current solar PV
technology.” In any rank ordering of the cost effectiveness of renewable technologies now being built,
solar PV tops out as most expensive. The public money will be needed to speed the solar PV’s evolution
and lower its price. He asks then whether the subsidies would be better spent on basic R&D to improve
solar PV technology rather than paying for more households and businesses to erect more subsidy-
choming panels up on their roofs. “We need a major scientific breakthrough, and we won’t get it by putting
panels up on houses,” he said in a statement. Using actual and simulated data from utilities Borenstein
tallied up how such peak pricing can improve the economic case for PV panels. His conclusion: it helps,
but not enough. All the same, Borenstein continues, a long-term cost analysis, including the net present
value of power produced over the multi-decade lifespan of of a PV system, reveals how costly these
systems are.
Photovoltaics cannot meet energy demand

Jeff Donn 04, Staff Writer at the Associated Press, “Solar Power City Offers 20 Years of Lessons: Early Glitches
but Technology has Evolved,” 6/7/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5119553/, accessed 7/9/08
Solar electric power, the industry says, has reached as many as 20,000 American rooftops, where it has
proved it can supplement electrical grids and trim bills. But its contribution so far is meager. Despite
technological progress, it hasn't worked reliably enough or economically enough to expand beyond a
small fraction of 1 percent of the country's power generation. Paul Maycock, who once ran the federal
program in photovoltaics, sees its long-range potential as 15 percent, at best. In other words, in the
coming age of whatever-replaces-petroleum, it can help greatly — but even its boosters say it can't
carry the load. It's not cause for panic. While still a heavy polluter, the coal industry has made
environmental strides and can deliver energy for perhaps another 250 years. Photovoltaics and wind power
are forecast as the growth leaders among alternative electricity sources for the next 20 years, but other
renewables will certainly generate power, produce heat, and run cars. They include solar and
geothermal heat, methane gas from garbage, crop-derived gasoline substitutes, and even older methods like
burning wood. Yet 20 years from now, renewable energy will amount to less than 7 percent of
Americans' fuel, the Department of Energy predicts. The dominant 40 percent share will come from
that 20th century standby — can you guess? — petroleum. "Renewable energy will not solve the
problem of increasing energy demand by a booming world population, but it does offer a bridge of
hope until a replacement energy source for nonrenewable fossil fuels can be developed," writes
geophysicist Dohn Riley. A paid-for opinion from some oil executive? Not at all. He was commenting as
director of the Alternative Energy Institute in Tahoe City, Calif.
Econ Adv – SQ = PV driven growth

Solar industry’s growth is currently PV driven
DOE 08, “Why PV is Important to the Economy,” 7/11/08, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_economy.html,
Accessed 7/8/08
In the last 25 years, the cost of PV has come down by several orders of magnitude, and the industry has
grown at average annualized rates of 15% to 20% — a growth rate comparable to that of the
semiconductor and computer industries. Based on the actual cost of electricity at the point of use, current
PV systems are within a factor of 2 to 5 of conventional sources for distributed applications (e.g.,
residential rooftops). As its cost approaches that of conventional technologies, enormous markets will open up
for PV. The roadmap charts a course that will result in competitive power (i.e., costs of under $3 to $4 per peak
watt) in a period of time that will ensure a competitive position. Sustained growth in production capacity
and markets will establish solar electricity as a significant contributor to the nation's energy portfolio,
which, in 2000, consisted of about 825 gigawatts (that's 825 billion watts) of peak electrical generation
capacity. The roadmap projects industry growth at about 25% per year — a level that should be achievable
according to recent market data (PV News. P. Maycock. February 2001). At this level of growth, domestic PV
capacity will approach 10% of U.S. peak generation capacity by 2030.
Econ Adv – Econ Collapse Now

Government bailout for Fannie and Freddie doesn’t solve investor confidence – economic
slowdown is still having global implications
With world capital markets interconnected as never before -- financial problems at U.S. banks are
affecting pension funds in Japan as well as depositors in California -- a mounting sense that America's
financial crisis is still far from touching bottom is adding to global troubles, including rising overall
inflation and soaring energy prices.
In Paris and London, stock markets fell yesterday to their lowest levels since 2005, partly as investors
doubted plans unveiled by U.S. regulators this weekend to prop up the ailing government-sponsored
mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In Tokyo, the benchmark stock index fell 2 percent,
slipping to levels not seen in 3 1/2 months as the Nikkei newspaper reported that Japan's three largest banks
were holding at least $44.2 billion in debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The economy is collapsing now – rising energy prices, high oil prices, and lack of investor
confidence are devastating the US stock market – global economic collapse is coming
because of the interconnectedness of markets
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, testifying before Congress, painted a picture of a U.S.
economy being squeezed from all directions. He cited the "numerous difficulties" that the central bank --
and all Americans -- are grappling with: "ongoing strains in financial markets; declining house prices; a
softening labor market; and rising prices of oil, food and some other commodities."
Less than a month ago, the Fed had indicated that rising inflation was starting to become a bigger concern
than the slumping economy. Since then, the stock market has fallen sharply and broader problems have
emerged in financial markets, and there have been new signs of slowing global growth. That led
Bernanke, in his semi-annual report to Congress on the economy, to emphasize the risks of high inflation and
a weak economy in equal measure.
"The possibility of higher energy prices, tighter credit conditions and a still-deeper contraction in
housing markets all represent significant downside risks to the outlook for growth," Bernanke told the
Senate Banking Committee. "At the same time, upside risks to the inflation outlook have intensified lately as
the rising prices of energy and some other commodities have led to a sharp pickup in inflation and some
measures of inflation expectations have moved higher."
Econ Adv – Econ Collapse Now

US economic woes are collapsing the global economy now – hi energy prices are creating
economic reverberations throughout the world – pressure on American consumers will
accelerate the process – dropping energy prices is key
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Bernanke, too, expressed continued deep worries about rising prices, saying that higher gasoline prices
mean that inflation "seems likely to move temporarily higher in the near term" and that businesses
may to try to pass along higher energy costs to consumers "more aggressively than they have so far."
Global concern is mounting for several reasons. First, foreign financial institutions are heavily exposed
to U.S. lending giants, and an estimated 50 percent of U.S. mortgage-backed securities are held by
foreign investors.
While Citibank and Merrill Lynch have been forced to take massive write-downs on bad U.S. loans, so, too,
have the Swiss banking giant UBS and Germany's IKB Deutsche Industriebank. In Norway, eight towns have
reported losing at least $125 million on their investments in U.S. mortgages. In Japan, several pension funds
have significant portions of their investments in debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. American
woes have fostered a global credit crunch, claiming overseas victims such as Britain's Northern Rock,
where a lack of liquidity led to its nationalization by the British government in February.
Of equal concern is that U.S. consumers, who gobble up more foreign goods than the citizens of any other
land, will be forced to downscale their lifestyles significantly in the face of falling housing values, rising
unemployment and a possible recession.
One camp of economists has argued that the rest of the world has to some measure "decoupled" from
the U.S. economy -- with consumers in Europe, Asian powerhouses such as China and India, and fast-
growing Latin America potentially blunting the drag on the global economy from a U.S. recession. But
others have argued that soaring energy prices, rising inflation and a weakening dollar are already
zapping the strength out of the world economy, with a full blown U.S. recession likely to take the wind
out of the sails of global growth.
Investor confidence levels are the lowest in five years.

Sacramento Business Journal ’08 (Investor Confidence drops to five year low, June 2, 2008,
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/06/02/daily2.html?surround=lfn)
A Gallup poll that tracks investor optimism shows confidence levels in May dipped to the lowest level in
five years. The Gallup Index of Investor Optimism fell to 15 in May -- down from 22 in March and 95
in May 2007. The May score is the index's lowest level for the month since the survey began in October
1996. The index hit its lowest point in March 2003 with a score of 5. The index hit its all-time high of 178
in January 2000. Gallup said investors remain pessimistic about the economic outlook for the year
ahead, with the Economic Dimension of the Index at negative 31. Investors are pessimistic about the
economic outlook as they were in March 2003, at the outset of the Iraq war, when the Economic
Dimension was at negative 30, Gallup noted. The data also indicates the average American investor is a
lot less optimistic than professionals on Wall Street about the current investment outlook. In particular,
average investors remain pessimistic about the prospects for the U.S. economy -- not as pessimistic as they
were when the Bear Stearns financial crisis was developing, but still at their pre-2008 pessimistic high,
Gallup said. Many on Wall Street seem to feel the U.S. economy will perform much better in the second half
of 2008 and into early 2009. Gallup's Index of Investor Optimism suggests the average U.S. investor is
not nearly so confident that will be the case. For the survey, Gallup did telephone interviews in May with
576 investors, aged 18 and older, with at least $10,000 in investable assets.
Econ Adv – Investor Confidence Low Now

Solar industry is reaching critical mass
Financial Times 08, “Squeeze is on as interest grows in soar sector,” 6/1/08,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5fd9bfaa-3002-11dd-86cc-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
The problems facing the solar sector exemplify the growing pains of a small industry. The revenues
from solar panels – or photovoltaics – stood at only $21.2bn last year, according to Lux Research, despite
three decades of technological development. Lux forecasts they will reach $71bn in 2012 even though the
industry faces falling margins, a squeeze on subsidies and an oversupply of the components. More
companies have been tempted into the sector by the subsidies available in Germany, Japan, the US and
some other developed countries, which have been pursuing renewable energy as a way of increasing
energy security and cutting carbon emissions. This promises to cut margins, bringing pain to many
smaller manufacturers, who are likely to be snapped up by bigger players seeking scale. But as the volume
of production rises, the solar industry will also reach its “holy grail” of “grid parity”, says Dean
Cooper, analyst at Ambrian. Grid parity means that the cost of producing solar energy would be
comparable to obtaining electricity from fossil fuels. The current price of about $3.80 per watt of solar
capacity equates to a power price of about $0.245 per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This compares
with average wholesale electricity prices of about $0.1272 per kilowatt hour in Europe.
Inspite of hype, PVs cannot boost the whole solar industry

MTC 08, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, Renewable Energy Trust, “Benefits and Barriers for
Photovoltaics,” 2/5/08, http://www.mtpc.org/cleanenergy/solar_info/benefit.htm, accessed 7/9/08
Though costs for solar electricity remain high in comparison to other electricity sources, they have
gone down significantly over the past thirty years. Still, costs can appear prohibitive for many
electricity users, particularly compared to utility power. Markets for photovoltaics have grown, but
will depend on further cost reduction to increase demand for photovoltaic products.
Solar Industry may collapse

Newsweek 07 (October 8, “The Power of the Sun” http://www.newsweek.com/id/41912/page/2, July 11, 2008)
The focus on all things green may be getting a little ahead of itself. Between 2005 and 2006, venture-
capital investments in the clean-tech sector jumped from $623 million to $1.5 billion, with solar and
biofuel garnering the biggest infusions, according to analysts at Lux Research. That's led to talk of an
alt-energy bubble. "From the perspective of investors and entrepreneurs, this is the new Internet,"
says Lux Research president Matthew Nordan. Even employees at alt-energy firms acknowledge that
renewable energy has suffered false starts in the past.

Solar industry is collapsing now – sensitivity to supply for silicon for PVs and lack of
consistency in government subsidies will make the industry to shaky to create investor
confidence
Johnson 08 (Keith, March 20, “Setting Sun? The “End of the Beginning” for Solar Bonanza,” The Wall Street
Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/20/setting-sun-the-end-of-the-beginning-for-solar-
bonanza/)
Many players in the solar power industry are optimistic that the silicon shortages hamstringing their growth
and crimping their profits will end soon, leading to happier times and happier shareholders. Not so fast, says
a new report out today by Lux Research, a New York-based technology research firm. Taking its cue
from Winston Churchill’s verdict on sun-baked El Alamein—“The End of the Beginning,”—the report says
the solar industry is going to suffer some growing pains. Specifically, more supplies of pure polysilicon
after 2010 will actually lead to a mini-glut, depressing prices. Coupled with lower demand, more
competition from rival solar technologies, and an always uncertain subsidy regime around the world,
the solar industry should fasten its seatbelts, the report says. “By 2010, there’s going to be a one-two
punch” for photovoltaic solar, the dominant part of the industry, says Mike Holman, Research Director
at Lux. That is, oversupply and fiercer competition. Even though the polysilicon shortage “will last longer
than most expect,” when it ends, it will flood the market just as demand starts to taper off, he says. And
thin-film solar—the bit of the solar-power industry that doesn’t rely on silicon at all—is quickly coming of
age. Lux expects it to zoom to 28% of the market from 17% today by 2012.
Silicon shortages make solar unviable now – sensitivity to silicon for PVs makes the
industry volatile
Martin LaMonica 08, Senior Writer at CNET News Covering Green Technologies, March 20, 2008, Solar
Industry Bubble Will Pop, But Continue To Grow, http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9899707-54.html?hhTest=1
The most vexing problem facing the solar electric industry the past few years has been a shortage of
silicon, the most common material used to make solar cells. But once that silicon shortage eases, prices for
products could start drop significantly--and dig into solar companies' profits. Lux Research on
Thursday published a summary of a report that predicts that the solar bubble will burst next year. An
oversupply of silicon won't be the only reason that prices will fall, according to Lux's report. Several other
solar technologies are emerging that will give incumbent solar photovoltaic providers more competition,
including thin-film solar cells made from materials other than silicon. "The market is now approaching a
tipping point: We project that the supply of solar modules will exceed demand in 2009, leading to
falling prices and a shakeout among companies that aren't prepared to thrive in this new
environment--particularly crystalline silicon players that haven't invested in new thin-film technologies,"
said the report's lead author, Ted Sullivan, in a statement. Traditional panels will also get a run for their
money from concentrating PV systems, solar thermal, and organic solar cells, which are all maturing, said
Lux Research. The findings from the company, which specializes in nanotechnology, are consistent with
what many people in the solar industry have been saying for some time. The constraints on silicon supply
are easing, which should put more price pressure on manufacturers in the coming years.

R&D funding is low for solar
Martin LaMonica 08, Senior Writer at CNET News Covering Green Technologies, June 23, 2008, Bubble
Shmubble, Say Clean-Tech Investors,” http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9974870-54.html?hhTest=1
So in the scheme of things, private-sector money going into the industrial energy market, which includes
clean tech, is relatively small, he and his colleagues asserted. "Remember, even though you've heard
about these technologies for decades, we really only had spotty R&D funding until recently," said
Nancy Floyd, an investor at Nth Power, one of the oldest energy-technology venture capital firms. "Venture
capital is the funding mechanism to take new products to market."
Econ Adv – Blackouts Now

Current energy source devastates consumers
William H. Smith 07, MBA, Bachelors and Masters in power engineering, 11/14/07, Powersmiths International
Inc, “Training for Blackouts,” http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2007/may/pesview.html, accessed July
8, 2008
The antiquated energy system currently used is based on an energy grid with large capacity, centralized
power plants sited far from the consumers that need them. There are two inherent problems with this
system and they are large plants that run the existing system are extremely inefficient - wasting up to 70
percent of fuel energy and causing significant levels of damaging pollution, and a problem in any portion
of the massive generation, transmission and distribution chain can leave customers in a wide geographic
area without power. With persistent air pollution problems causing significant harm to the
environment and public health and access to uninterrupted power resources an essential element of modern
life, these flaws are unacceptable. The following points illustrate why increased investments in our current
energy system will not solve these problems and why we must ensure that clean energy is a central part of the
solution. A system which relies on a few, large, exposed generation facilities and an extensive
transmission system is highly vulnerable to attack, accident and natural disaster. And problems
anywhere along the chain can affect a large number of customers in an unrelated area.
Blackouts in Status Quo

Dr. Mohammad Shahidehpour 08, Bodine Distinguished Professor and Chairman at the Illinois Institute of
Technology, 5/18/08, “ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM RESTRUCTURING: WILL BLACKOUTS OCCUR
AGAIN?,” http://www.ieeegcc.org/program/InvitedSpeakers/DrMohammadShahidehpourtalk.pdf, accessed July 8,
2008
Recent blackouts in the United States and throughout the world provided a growing evidence that
certain actions are urgently needed to ensure that the electricity sector will continue to provide secure
and affordable energy to its customers. The restructuring of electricity and the creation of self-interested
entities such as generating and transmission companies have surfaced many shortcomings of the existing
electricity systems in an interconnected network. While the objectives of a restructured power company for
delivering electricity to end-customers are perceived to remain the same in electricity markets, new types of
unbundling, coordination, and rules are required to guarantee a sound competition among market participants
and non-discriminatory open access to transmission users.
Blackouts destroy business profits – consistent blackouts harm the manufacturing sector
Nemeth, 2008, President and CEO of Mirifex(U.S. Department of Energy, “The Economic Impact of ONE
Blackout,” July 11, 2008, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_economy.html, accessed July 11, 2008)
A study measuring the economic impact of the August 2003 blackout found that the event will have far-
reaching, long-term implications for businesses and organizations in the affected region. The study is a
joint undertaking of Mirifex, a business and technology consulting firm headquartered in the region; The
Center for Regional Economic Issues at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of
Management; and CrainTech, an on-line publication based in Cleveland that serves the technology
community of Northeast Ohio. Preliminary study findings include: Eleven percent of firms surveyed say the
blackout will affect their decision making about growth or relocation. Because of the blackout, more than
one-third (38%) of businesses surveyed said they'd be somewhat or very likely to invest in alternative
energy systems. More than one-third (34%) of firms surveyed have no risk management or disaster recovery
plans in place, and nearly half (46%) of the businesses surveyed will invest more in risk management,
business continuance, and/or disaster recovery in the future. More than one-third (35%) of the businesses
surveyed felt it was somewhat or very likely that the region's image would suffer as a result of the
blackout. More than half the businesses surveyed say the top threat of future interruption is either cyber
crime (26%) or a utility outage (26%), outdistancing other concerns more than 2:1. Two-thirds (66%) of the
businesses surveyed lost at least a full business day because of the blackout. A quarter (24%) of the
businesses surveyed lost more than $50,000 per hour of downtime, translating to at least $400,000 for
an 8-hour day. And 4% of businesses lost more than $1 million for each hour of downtime. Nearly half
(46%) of the businesses surveyed said lost employee productivity was the largest contributor to losses
caused by the blackout. Production/manufacturing and customer sales/service were the areas of
business hardest hit by the blackout.
Econ Adv – Blackouts Now

Renewable energy needs investment for blackouts
Hendricks 2006, Economic Analyst with the AFL-CIO, (Center for American Progress, “Get Ready,” June 2,
2006, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/06/b1723963.html, accessed July, 11, 2008)
To reduce costs and improve system reliability and reaction times in the event of blackouts and service
disruptions from natural disasters, it is essential to invest in smart and secure micro-grids. These would
include on-site generation of renewable electricity sources that can withstand interruptions in flows of
natural gas and electricity, while continuing to ensure critical services like traffic signals, pumping
stations, emergency response services, and other critical energy needs. During the largest blackout in U.S.
history in August 2003, 50 million people went without power at an estimated total regional cost of $8
billion dollars. A modest investment in distributed renewable energy generation throughout the
regional electrical grid could have prevented the cascading blackouts and protected citizens and
ratepayers. Distributed energy generation and a smarter electrical grid will dramatically improve the
security of the national energy infrastructure, reduce costs, and improve recovery times in the event of
disaster.
Econ Adv – Blackout Impacts – Nuke Reactors go Boom

Despite backup generators, nuclear power plants becoming increasingly susceptible to grid
instability
Jeffrey S. Merrifield 06, Commissioner U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the ANS Executive
Conference on Grid Reliability, The NRC and Grid Stability, Stability and Off-Site Power Denver, Colorado July
24, 2006 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2006/s-06-018.html
Nuclear power reactors must be cooled continuously, even when shut down. The numerous pumps and
valves in the reactor cooling systems therefore must have access to electrical power at all times, even if
the normal power supply from the grid is degraded or completely lost. As a regulator, we want to
minimize the time a nuclear power plant is subjected to a complete loss of offsite power, otherwise
known as Station Blackout. Even though plants are designed with emergency diesel generators to supply
power to pumps and valves that keep the reactor cool when normal power is lost, we do not like to
challenge those diesel generators any more than is absolutely necessary. The NRC was concerned about grid
reliability long before the 2003 blackout event. On August 12, 1999, while the Callaway plant (in Missouri) was offline in a maintenance
outage, the plant saw the offsite power supply voltage fall below minimum requirements for a 12-hour period. The voltage drop they
observed was caused by peak levels of electrical loading and the transport of large amounts of power on the grid adjacent to Callaway.
The licensee noted that the deregulated wholesale power market contributed to conditions where higher grid power flows were likely to
occur in the area near Callaway. Alliant Energy had to spend ten's of millions of dollars to install new transformers with automatic tap
changers to keep voltage above minimum requirements, and capacitor banks to improve the reactive power (volt-amps reactive, or
VARs) factor in the Callaway switchyard. As a result of deregulation, many electric utilities were split into electric generating
companies and transmission and distribution companies. Thus, nuclear power plants now must rely on outside entities
to maintain the switchyard voltage within acceptable limits. Over time, some transmission companies
have become less sensitive to the potential impacts that grid voltage can have on nuclear plant
operations.

Grid instability shuts down reactors risking Chernobyl size accidents- safety checks will
fail
Barczak and Kilpatrick May 04, Researchers for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy CODE RED
ALERT: Confronting Nuclear Power in Georgia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sara Barczak and Rita Kilpatrick
http://www.cleanenergy.org/Code%20Red/FinalCodeRed.pdf
Ironically, nuclear power plants rely on electricity from the power grid to operate. The 2003 blackout in
the Northeast, the largest in American history, shut down nine nuclear power plants in the United States.
These plants, along with several more in Canada, could not come online for several days due to continued
power grid instability.54 Power disruptions cause nuclear power plants to shutdown automatically.
However, even when shutdown, the plant requires electricity to pump cooling water and to run the
control room and other systems essential to keeping the reactor safe. You cannot simply turn off a
nuclear power plant. To shut down a nuclear power plant, control rods are inserted into the nuclear reactor to stop the chain
reaction. Furthermore, nuclear fuel inside the reactor and the used nuclear fuel stored in the spent fuel pools generate tremendous
amounts of thermal radioactive decay heat and must be kept cool. Nuclear plants are required to have backup power (large, on-site
diesel-powered generators) immediately available in order to maintain cool water flowing through the reactor core and spent fuel pools
to prevent meltdown.55 Nuclear power plants are as vulnerable to Murphy’s law as anything else designed
and managed by humans. During a routine refueling outage on March 20, 1990, at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, a fuel truck driver
accidentally backed into an overhead transmission line that linked one of Vogtle’s reactors to its off-site power source. The emergency
diesel generators failed to provide backup power because one was undergoing routine maintenance and the other malfunctioned after
little more than a minute of operation. This series of events caused Vogtle to experience a full blackout—a serious situation in which the
plant was without power to maintain safe operations.56 The Vogtle incident eventually led to a senior manager coming forward to allege
that falsification of emergency generator tests had occurred even after the above debacle. The manager was subsequently fired, leading
to an investigation by the NRC, which determined that the firing violated federal regulations. A large fine was levied, but because the
statute of limitations had expired the fine was never imposed.57 Other instances of poor management have surfaced at Plant Vogtle.
According to NRC reports, licensed operators have been found under the influence of drugs and have
failed breathalyzer tests, and control room areas have been inadequately attended, sometimes due to a
“mental lapse” on the part of plant operators.58 In December 1996, Southern Nuclear received a $50,000 fine at Plant
Farley in Alabama for failing to install fire barriers adequately, a situation that existed for an unknown period of time. This could have
resulted in a failure “to achieve and maintain safe plant shutdown conditions.” The NRC deemed that eventual improvements were not
done in a timely manner.59 In 1986, then-NRC Commissioner James Asselstine testified to Congress that “given the level of
safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect to see a core
meltdown accident within the next 20 years, and it is possible that such an accident could result in off-
site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger than, the releases estimated to have occurred
at Chernobyl.”60 We are nearing Asselstine’s “deadline.”

Blackouts risk 100s of nuclear meltdowns across the country
Caldicott 05, Australian physician who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 and is the president of the Nuclear
Policy Research Institute, May 18, 2005, U.S. Russia still face mutual destruction threat, UPS,
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-77621.html
This would of course ruin the U.S. economy and utterly disrupt society across the country. But it would have
even more grave consequences. There are 103 nuclear power plants across the United States. They all
rely on external electricity supply that powers their water-coolant systems. If these were all knocked
out, you would run the risk of more than 100 Chernobyl-scale nuclear core meltdowns across the
United States. All the power plants have their own back-up generators, of course, but they would all
need time crank up and too often their testing and maintenance has been neglected because they so
seldom, if ever, have had to be used in the past, and some of them don't work when they're supposed
to. Therefore there would indeed be a real risk of many Chernobyls all over the place. Thus a single
EMP detonation in space aimed against U.S. military space-based assets could produce a truly cataclysmic
outcome, and it would be very easy to do.
Grid instability results in accidents worse than nuclear war

World Press Review 03, “Eye on the United States: America in the Dark,” August 18, 2003, Vol. 50 No. 11,
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1579.cfm, Accessed 10/27/04
The scariest thing about the cascading power outages was not spoiled groceries in the fridge, or elevators
getting stuck, or even, however cynical it may sound, sick patients left to their own devices without
electricity-powered medical equipment. The scariest thing of all was chemical plants and refineries with 24-
hour operations, which, if interrupted, can result in consequences even more disastrous and on a larger scale
than those of an atomic bomb explosion. So it is safe to say that Americans got lucky this time. Several hours
after the disaster, no one could know for certain whether the power outage was caused by an accident or
someone’s evil design. In fact, the disaster on the East Coast illustrates just one thing: A modern city is in
itself a bomb, regardless of whether someone sets off the detonator intentionally or by accident. As I recall,
when I was writing my book Industrial Zone, in which business deals were bound to lead to a massive
industrial catastrophe, at some point in time I was considering making a cascading power outage the cause of
a catastrophe. Back then, I was amazed and shocked at the swiftness of the process. Shutting down at least
one electric power plant is enough to cause a drop in power output throughout the entire power grid. This is
followed by an automatic shutdown of nuclear power plants, a further catastrophic drop in power, and finally
a cascading outage of the entire grid system.
Econ Adv – US behind now

Only aggressive national policies promoting solar energy solve for U.S. lag
Environmental Defense Fund 08, Solar Energy: Power From The Sun. 6/18/08,
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=23052, accessed July 9, 2008
The Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) predicts that with the right policies and investments, half
of all new electricity generation in the U.S. could come from solar power by 2025. While these reports
offer promise, the U.S. has been falling behind. For years, the U.S. was the world's leading producer of
solar cells. However, the Earth Policy Institute reports that the U.S. now ranks fifth in production behind
Japan, China, Germany and Taiwan. According to an MIT study, Japan's solar production increased
twenty-two–fold from 1994 through 2003—while Japan was in a recession. During this same period,
while the U.S. economy surged, the U.S. solar industry remained flat. The U.S. is also lagging on solar
installation. Because of consistent government policies, Japan and Germany together command 70
percent of the world's solar market, despite the fact that neither country is particularly sunny. Why
hasn't the U.S. maintained its competitive edge in solar energy despite having some of the best solar
resources on Earth? The answer is simple: we haven't made clean renewable energy a priority. Both
Germany and Japan have aggressive national policies promoting solar energy and both countries have
ratified the Kyoto treaty, which mandates global warming pollution reductions.

U.S. lagging to Europe in CSP industry and technology
Harry Fuller 08, Executive Editor of CNet, “U.S. has more sun but Europe has more solar power…for now,”
2/16/08, http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=808 , accessed July 8th 2008
A new study of the Concentrated Solar Power industry shows Europe to be far ahead, with major
growth in the U.S. a couple years away. Emerging Energy Research found several reasons for the growth
on Concentrated Solar Power…but first a brief explanation. CSP uses reflectors to focus the sun’s energy,
like using a hand magnifier to set paper on fire like you did when you were ten years old. Except this
concentrated solar heat is focused on enclosed pipes containing oil or water that becomes steam. These
superhot fluids are used to then drive turbines that generate electricity. In the CSP system the oil or water is
reused. There are no by-products, no CO2. This goes a long way toward meeting Kyoto Protocol targets
for co-operating nations in Europe and elsewhere. The US ignores Kyoto so it lags in CSP even though the
USA has more solar energy available than Europe, as you can see from this NASA map I blogged
recently. Besides the US, Australia and Africa have prime places to capture solar energy.
US will become a net-importer of PV cells in the Status Quo

SEIA, 2004 (Our Solar Power Future, p.12-13, http://www.seia.org/roadmap.pdf)
Our projections start with where we are today—with a worldwide industry growing at greater than 30%
annually, but increasingly dominated by German and Japanese technology and market development. If the
United States continues at current levels of state and federal investment in research and market
development, then we will continue to contribute to the growth of world markets, but will import an
increasing share of the systems installed here. Investments by Germany and Japan in both research and
market development will put their manufacturers in a commanding market position. However, with robust
investments in research and market development, the picture changes dramatically. We would expect
growth in shipments in the United States to accelerate from 30% to 38% per year by 2010, then
moderate to 26% by 2020 as PV technology and markets mature rapidly. By 2020, total installed PV
capacity in the United States could reach 36 GW—a level not expected from the Baseline case until
after 2034. These growth rates sound ambitious, but they are consistent with what is happening today and
with experts’ assessments of solar power’s potential. Solar power companies involved in cost-shared research
with the U.S. Department of Energy have reported an 82% “experience curve” in reducing module costs—
that is, for every doubling of production, costs decline by 18%. For this roadmap, we assume a 90%
experience curve for solar power systems. Expanded support for R&D offers considerable opportunities
to accelerate cost declines beyond this conservative assumption. Decreased costs open up new market
opportunities, which, in turn, expand solar power shipments and help further reduce costs. Solar power
once cost hundreds of dollars per kWh for a few watts of power for satellites. This year, solar power will add
1,000 MW to worldwide generation, cost U.S. commercial customers about 18 cents per kWh, and compete
with conventional peaking power for some customers.

The U.S. is behind in energy productivity
Council on Competitiveness 08, “The Energy-Competitiveness Relationship,” 2/26/08,
http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Define%20Executive%20Summary%20022608.pdf
The United States Is a Global Laggard in Energy Productivity. The United States is the most energy-
intensive developed region today and lags behind its OECD competitors in improving energy
productivity. At the same time, many developing regions are making rapid progress in reducing their energy
intensity. To the extent that energy is an important part of production costs, the United States is losing
competitive ground relative to its global competitors. Energy productivity, like labor and capital
productivity, is important for wealth creation. The United States has underinvested in energy
efficiency. American business leaders in general are not as knowledgeable or open to the economic
opportunity inherent in improved energy management as they should be.
Germany is ahead of the US on solar

MARK LANDLER, journalist for the New York Times, May 16, 2008
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/business/worldbusiness/16solar.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=production%20incenti
ves%20solar%20power&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
THALHEIM, Germany — This sad stretch of eastern Germany, with its deserted coal mines and corroded
factories, epitomizes post-industrial gloom. It is a place where even the clouds rarely seem to part. Yet the
sun was shining here the other day — and nowhere more brightly than at Q-Cells, a German company that
surpassed Sharp last year to become the world’s largest maker of photovoltaic solar cells. Q-Cells is the main
tenant among a flowering cluster of solar start-ups here in an area known as Solar Valley. Thanks to its
aggressive push into renewable energies, cloud-wreathed Germany has become an unlikely leader in the
race to harness the sun’s energy. It has by far the largest market for photovoltaic systems, which
convert sunlight into electricity, with roughly half of the world’s total installations. And it is the third-
largest producer of solar cells and modules, after China and Japan. Now, though, with so many solar
panels on so many rooftops, critics say Germany has too much of a good thing — even in a time of record oil
prices. Conservative lawmakers, in particular, want to pare back generous government incentives that support
solar development. They say solar generation is growing so fast that it threatens to overburden consumers
with high electricity bills. Solar-energy entrepreneurs warn that reducing incentives will deprive Germany of
its pole position in an industry of the future. As proof, they point to the United States and Japan, which were
once solar stars but have faded as their government subsidies became less enticing. The debate over solar
subsidies is a test of how an environmentally minded country can move from nurturing a promising
alternative energy sector to creating a mass-market industry that can compete with conventional energy
sources on its own footing. It is a tricky transition, even with a sympathetic population. “Germany’s law has
basically been a turbocharger,” said Anton Milner, the chief executive of Q-Cells. If the proposals being
floated by the Christian Democratic Union, the party of Chancellor Angela Merkel, were adopted, he
predicted, “you’d kill the industry.” Germany’s surging market has lured investors from Canada, Norway and
the United States. More than 40,000 people work in the photovoltaic industry, helping to revive blighted
regions like this one. On Wednesday, Q-Cells reported a 63 percent jump in its first-quarter operating profit,
showing the riches to be reaped from sunshine. Leading a visitor past gleaming rows of solar panels on the
roof of Q-Cells’ headquarters, Mr. Milner, a British-born former executive at Royal Dutch Shell, said
Germany could not afford to blow this chance. Surely, he says, the naysayers are aware that the cost of
electricity will spike along with the price of fossil fuels? Joachim Pfeiffer, a member of Parliament who is
drafting the plan to cut incentives, said: “We don’t want to slaughter the solar industry; we think photovoltaic
technology will have a great future. But to have that future, we can’t have overkill now.” At the heart of the
debate is the Renewable Energy Sources Act. It requires power companies to buy all the alternative energy
produced by these systems, at a fixed above-market price, for 20 years. This mechanism, known as a feed-
in tariff, gives entrepreneurs a powerful incentive to install solar panels. With a locked-in customer
base for their electricity, they can earn a reliable return on their investment. It has worked:
homeowners rushed to clamp solar panels on their roofs and farmers planted them in fields where
sheep once grazed. The amount of electricity generated by these installations rose 60 percent in 2007
compared with 2006, faster than any other renewable energy (solar still generates just 0.6 percent of
Germany’s total electricity, compared with 6.4 percent for wind). This, in a country that gets an average of
only 1,528 hours of sunshine a year, less than a third of the total daylight hours. That figure is comparable to
London’s but it is one-third fewer sunshine hours than in Florence, Italy, and only half San Diego’s, making
German solar installations less efficient, and their growth all the more remarkable. With wind, biomass and
other alternative energy also growing, Germany derives 14.2 percent of its electricity from renewable
sources. That puts it ahead of a European Union target for countries to generate 12.5 percent of electricity
from alternative sources by 2010. Spain, France, Italy and Greece have copied Germany’s solar
incentives. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed a plan in which utilities pay rebates to
customers with solar panels, though only up to the amount of electricity they would have otherwise used
from conventional energy sources.

U.S. losing market share in emerging solar market
significant contributor to the nation's economy. Mounting foreign investments have eroded U.S. market share
and have overtaken our R&D lead on the technology front. To secure our future, we must strengthen and
expand our investments. We must take our core R&D and other intellectual resources and integrate
them with U.S. industry's best interests — resulting in sound and well-conceived programs and
sustained investments that clearly support and guide U.S. PV industry leadership worldwide.
Sustained partnerships between the U.S. solar electric industry and national laboratories and
U.S. falling behind in solar market

Environmental Defense Fund 08, Solar Energy: Power From The Sun. 6/18/08,
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=23052, accessed July 9, 2008
While these reports offer promise, the U.S. has been falling behind. For years, the U.S. was the world's leading
producer of solar cells. However, the Earth Policy Institute reports that the U.S. now ranks fifth in
production behind Japan, China, Germany and Taiwan. According to an MIT study, Japan's solar
production increased twenty-two–fold from 1994 through 2003—while Japan was in a recession.
During this same period, while the U.S. economy surged, the U.S. solar industry remained flat. The
U.S. is also lagging on solar installation. Because of consistent government policies, Japan and
Germany together command 70 percent of the world's solar market, despite the fact that neither
country is particularly sunny.
Econ Adv – Solar Demand High

Demand for CSP high now because of rising fossil fuel costs
Wald 08 (Matthew, International Herald Tribune, March 6, “Rising fuel prices make the budding field of solar
thermal technology more viable,” http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/06/business/solar.php)
At first, as he adjusted pumps and checked temperatures, Aaron Boucher looked like any technician in the
control room of an electrical plant. Then he rushed to the window and scanned the sky, to check his fuel
supply. It is not the kind that features shiny panels bolted to the roofs of houses. This type involves covering
acres of desert with mirrors that focus intense sunlight on a fluid, heating it enough to make steam. The steam
turns a turbine and generates electricity. The technology is not new, but it is suddenly in high demand. As
prices rise for fossil fuels and worries grow about their contribution to global warming, solar thermal
plants are being viewed as a renewable power source with huge potential. Aside from the ones in the
United States, eight plants are under construction in Spain, Algeria and Morocco. More projects are in
various stages of planning in those countries and in Israel, Mexico, China, South Africa and Egypt,
according to a count kept by Frederick Morse, formerly in charge of solar energy at the Energy Department
and now a consultant. The California plants grew more sophisticated and costs shrank as the project
progressed. But then the price of a competing fuel, natural gas, collapsed in the 1990s and building new
solar plants became uneconomic. Today, natural gas prices are much higher, and political opposition is
rising to construction of new coal-burning power plants. Many states, including California, are imposing
mandates for renewable energy. All of that is reviving interest in solar thermal plants.
Energy demand is growing, companies shifting away from coal and towards alternative energy
Clayton 2008. (Mark, The Christian Science Monitor, staff writer, March 4, “U.S. coal power boom suddenly
wanes,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.htm)
Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired
power plants in the United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power
instead. Utilities canceled or put on hold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a
new analysis by the US Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh.
These moves are a sharp reversal from a year ago, when the industry had more than 150 such plants in
development and signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal. Natural-gas and renewable
power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline, according to Global Energy
Decisions, a Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000
megawatts under development compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. This year
could diminish coal’s future prospects even more. Wall Street investment banks last month said they
will now evaluate the cost of carbon emissions before approving power plants, raising the bar much
higher for new coal projects, analysts say. “What you’re seeing is a de facto moratorium on coal power
right now,” says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst at Pace Global in New York. “You turn off the
money spigot, you’ve turned off those plants.” With US energy demand growing about 1.2 percent a
year, big utilities must get energy from somewhere. So far, utilities seem to be shifting to natural gas
and renewable energy. In Florida, two coal-fired power plants were recently nixed, but natural-gas turbines
are to take their place. PacifiCorp, a regional electric utility owned by Warren Buffett’s investment company,
turned its back on coal-fired power late last year and now emphasizes gas and wind. “There’s not going to
be a big need for more coal,” he says. “There are plenty of alternatives coming.”

Energy demands make transition to renewables inevitable
World Energy Council 2007. (“Survey of Energy Resources 2007”,
http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/solar/default.asp)
Concerns regarding present energy systems are therefore growing because of the inherent risks connected
with security of supply and potential international conflicts, and on account of the potential damage they can
do to the natural environment in many and diverse ways. World public opinion, international and national
institutions, and other organisations are increasingly aware of these risks, and they are pointing to an urgent
need to fundamentally transform present energy systems onto a more sustainable basis. A major contribution
to this transformation can be expected to come from solar radiation, the prime energy resource. This scenario
is based on the recognition that it is essential to move energy systems towards sustainability worldwide, both
in order to protect the natural life-support systems on which humanity depends and to eradicate energy
poverty in developing countries. Of course, this new solar era can be envisioned mainly because of the
tremendous scientific and technological advances made during the last century and the ongoing research and
development. By 2100 oil, gas, coal and nuclear, as shown in Fig. 10-1 , will provide less than 15% of
world energy consumption while solar thermal and photovoltaic will supply about 70%. Key elements
of this long-term scenario are the energy efficiency and energy intensity policies that will make the
contribution of renewable and solar energy a substantial factor. Those policies will deeply transform
the building and construction, industry and transport sectors, increasing their reliance on renewable
energy resources.
Solar market is booming now

Gail Roberts, Chief Editor of the Electric Utility Week, May 28, 2007 (Electric Utility Week)
Wind power has led the groundswell of renewable development in the US, but according to two
environmental research groups, solar power is poised to become a mainstream option. A big increase in
production of polysilicon, which is a key component of photovoltaic systems, combined with new
technologies and China's low-cost mass production of solar panels, are propelling the growth. Global grid-
connected solar capacity stood at 5,000 MW in early 2007, according to Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research group in
Washington, which last week released an update of the solar power industry in conjunction with Prometheus Institute of Cambridge,
Massachusetts. By contrast, installed wind capacity in the US alone now stands at 9,149 MW, according to the American Wind Energy
Association in Washington. But annual production of PV systems worldwide will roughly double over the next two years, from the 2,500
MW produced in 2006 to 3,750 MW this year and 5,000 MW in 2008, Worldwatch said. Much of that will be for on-grid applications,
which the organization said would reach about 12,000 MW by the end of 2008. Most of the remaining production will go to off-grid
installations, where for many years most solar PVs were deployed. Since 2000, however, the trend has reversed, said Janet Sawin, author
of the "Solar Power Shining Bright" report and a senior researcher at Worldwatch. The off-grid market will continue to grow in such
places as China, India and Africa, Sawin said, but cumulative data for off-grid installations is difficult to compile. Much of the global
growth is being propelled by a ramping up of polysilicon production and booming markets in Germany and Japan, with Spain and the
US expected to follow. More than a dozen companies across Europe, China, Japan and the US are bringing on "unprecedented" levels of
production capacity, according to Worldwatch. Growth previously was constrained by a shortage of manufacturing capacity for purified
polysilicon, which is also used in semiconductor chips. Last year, however, more than half of the polysilicon
worldwide was used for solar systems. Prometheus estimates that "the increase in polysilicon supply will
bring costs down rapidly ? by more than 40% in the next three years." China's PV production jumps ? but for
export "We are now seeing two major trends ? the development of advanced technologies and the emergence of China as a low-cost
producer," Sawin said. Indeed, China's "dramatic growth" in PV production last year was the biggest surprise, according to Worldwatch's
report. China last year passed the US to become the world's third-largest producer of PV cells behind Germany and Japan. Suntech
Power, China's leading manufacturer, went from the world's eighth-largest producer of PV systems in 2005 to fourth in 2006, according
to Prometheus. China's growth was spurred by its large work force, strong industrial base and its growing need for energy. It is
positioned to bring about major reductions in PV prices in the next few years, according to Prometheus. "To say that Chinese PV
producers plan to expand production rapidly in the year ahead would be an understatement," said Travis Bradford, president of
Prometheus. "They have raised billions from international IPOs to build capacity and increase scale with the goal of driving down costs.
Four Chinese IPOs are expected to come to market this month alone." But so far China's PV production efforts have been "less to meet
demand in China, although China has huge solar resources," Sawin said in an interview. Instead, "most of what is being produced in
China is being exported and going to markets overseas ? Germany and Spain are primarily markets right now for China." The new
'darlings' of Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Meanwhile, supply shortages have pushed manufacturers to develop methods to use
polysilicon more efficiently and, according to the report, also have accelerated the technologies that do not rely on purified silicon "and
are inherently less expensive." Thin film cells, which are made from amorphous silicon and other low-cost
materials, are now being made. "These technologies have recently become the darlings of Silicon Valley
venture capitalists," Worldwatch said. In the past, the thin films cells were not efficient enough to
compete, but now a dozen companies are scaling up production of low-cost solar modules "that can be
churned out like rolls of plastic," Worldwatch said. Developers include Miasole of Santa Clara, California,
Nanosolar of Palo Alto, California, and United Solar Ovonics, headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.
Meanwhile, Sawin credits strong government incentives in countries such as Germany and Japan as an
impetus for the growth in solar power. US state regulations also are encouraging growth, she notes. States
with solar rebates include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin
and Wyoming. Some states also have "carve-outs" for solar in their renewable portfolio standards. Those
states include Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC. Nevada, for
example, according to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, requires that 20% of
electricity come from renewables by 2015, with 5% of the total portfolio coming from solar. Federal
incentives also are available for research. The US Department of Energy last week awarded $22.7 million in grants to support basic
research in solar power. Some 27 projects were picked to work on enhancing capture, conversion and use of solar energy through
research in fundamental and physical science. The research is to be conducted in universities and national laboratories in 18 states. Over
three years, $9.9 million will go to 14 projects focused on converting solar energy to electricity, while $12.8 million will fund 13
projects centered on converting solar energy to chemical fuels.
Econ Adv – Solar Market Increasing

Solar energy will soon be a giant market
Trevor Winnie, Staff Writer, 1/18/08, Solar Power: A Bright Idea, NuWire Investor,
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/solar-power-a-bright-idea-51410.aspx
For many investors, the costs of "green" investments such as solar power are hard to justify. But investors
who are interested in solar power have the opportunity to save money by taking advantage of unique
financing strategies and government-offered subsidies, rebates and tax incentives, in addition to long-term
savings on energy costs. Further, investors have the opportunity to use solar energy to make money by
marketing a property that uses solar as "green"—a feature for which some buyers or tenants would be willing
to pay a premium. Many emerging energy technologies promise a profitable future; however, solar could be
especially beneficial for individual investors. “The Earth receives more energy from the Sun in just one hour
than the world uses in a whole year,” according to Solarbuzz, a San Francisco-based solar energy research
and consultancy firm. With that knowledge, it’s no wonder that renewable energy enthusiasts have high
hopes for the future of solar technology. But forget the future: Today, financing strategies are making it
possible to benefit from solar technology. Solar is a small player in the U.S. energy industry, representing
about 1 percent of all energy produced; this number is likely to rise, as manufacturing has skyrocketed from
an annual level of 300 megawatts in 2000 to more than 2,000 megawatts in 2006, according to the book The
Clean Tech Revolution, by Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder. Organizations are working to make the conversion
to solar energy financially feasible Why is this industry booming? With today’s volatile energy markets, not
to mention oil’s recent climb to $100 per barrel, solar energy creates an attractive alternative that allows long-
term fixed costs for energy production. As costs of solar continue to fall, investment in this technology could
become an economically wise decision for both residential and commercial consumers. The biggest obstacle
preventing widespread implementation of solar energy is the large upfront cost required to purchase the
technology and have it correctly installed and maintained. The average cost of a residential system is around
$8,000 to $12,000. Those who aren’t environmentalists likely believe this money is better spent
elsewhere. But the solar industry will never reach its potential if it remains hidden in the environmental
niche. To break into the mainstream, solar must become a product that is financially beneficial and easily
acquired by the average consumer.
The solar industry is rapidly emerging

The solar industry continues to grow steadily as costs for solar systems decline in the expanding
markets for renewable energy. Since the late 1990s, the market for solar energy has grown at an
annual rate of 20%. The solar industry estimates that growth rates above 25% annually are possible,
resulting in a $27 billion market by 2020. With technological innovations lowering costs and increased
market growth leading to new jobs and export opportunities, solar energy can become a major high-
tech growth industry that contributes significantly to our economic growth and improves our trade
balance.
Econ Adv – Wind Increasing Now – RPS

RPS are causing a shift to wind power investments
Global Power Report, 07 (Global interest in climate change spurs M&A of wind assets; attracts EU firms to
the US, 7/9/08, L/N)
Location, specifically the quality of the wind resource and the proximity of a site to load centers, can
result in wide differences in the valuation of projects within a portfolio. In other words, not all wind
projects are created equal. As one analyst noted, Horizon's assets were able to command a premium in part
because they have particularly high capacity factors of about 40% compared with about 30% for most wind
projects. In fact, there is a shift under way, said Tamir Druz, an analyst with Tower Perrin. Acquirers are
showing greater interest in wind portfolios in the eastern US, in part because many western portfolios
have already been bought up, but also because many northeastern states have strong renewable
portfolio standards and sites are closer to load centers. It is also harder to site a wind project in the
Northeast, and that makes permitted projects more valuable and puts upward pressure on the price a
seller will seek. For many European companies, it could be worth paying a premium for a portfolio of
existing and nearly done projects, said Druz. And if those projects are in the Northeast, they could command
an even higher premium.
RPS creates production tax credit which leads to and is key to the expansion of wind energy
Lacey 07, Stephen Lacey is editor and host of the Inside Renewable Energy podcast. He also helps write, manage
and edit stories for publication (Stephen, U.S. Energy Bill -- Early Christmas Present or Lump of Coal, 7/8/08,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50527)
The renewable portfolio standard, which would set a target of getting 20-25% of the nation's electricity
from renewable resources by 2025, will no longer, is in the bill. While that is indeed a blow to the cause
of renewable energy supporters, perhaps the bigger issue is the lack of tax incentives such as the
production tax credit (PTC) and the investment tax credit (ITC). The PTC is vital for the developers
and manufacturers that AWEA represents. Without a long-term extension of the PTC, which expires in
December of 2008, developers will be unsure about the financial viability of their projects. If the
market starts to slow down in the U.S., manufacturers will be unwilling to scale up production or enter
the country all together. Earlier this week, AWEA issued its fourth quarter market report, which
showed that the industry is on track to install 4,000 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity, shattering the
2006 record of 2,454 MW. With long-term support, AWEA believes the industry can continue to
surpass those numbers. But if the PTC is not extended, next year's installed capacity may fall short.
Wind power is growing in SQ

USA Today, 08 (Wind power growth gusts strongly in USA in 2007; Currents generate more than 1% of
country's electricity, 7/9/08, L/N)
U.S. wind power grew 45% in 2007, the sharpest rise since the 1980s, as developers responded to a
federal tax credit, a growing number of state renewable energy mandates and global warming
concerns, the American Wind Energy Association said Thursday. The industry installed 5,244
megawatts in 2007, accounting for 30% of all new electricity-generating capacity, the AWEA says.
That's more than double the largest amount ever added and enough to power 1.5 million homes, says
AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. U.S. wind power had been annually growing an average
30% the previous five years, he says. "I think it signifies that wind will be an increasingly significant
contributor to our electricity supply system," Swisher says, predicting that wind could provide 20% of
U.S. power by 2020. Wind now generates more than 1% of U.S. electricity, the AWEA says. That far
surpasses other renewable energies -- such as solar and biomass -- except for large hydroelectric
projects. The USA has been the world leader in wind energy growth the past three years, though the
nation still trails Germany in total wind power.
Econ Adv- Wind Intermittent

Wind power also causes intermittency issues
West Morning News 2008, Wind Power 'Too Unreliable to Meet Our Energy Needs' ; Opponents of Wind
Farms Have Welcomed a New Report Which Reveals That Wind Power Would Be Too Unreliable to Meet Britain's
Electricity Needs,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1461266/wind_power_too_unreliable_to_meet_our_energy_needs_/index.ht
ml
Opponents of wind farms have welcomed a new report which reveals that wind power would be too
unreliable to meet Britain's electricity needs. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF),
wind patterns around the country mean turbines will fail to produce enough power at times of high
demand. The REF's report also claims back-up electricity plants would be needed to meet demand during
calm conditions. Wind farm opponents in Cornwall and Devon said the report proved wind farms
should not be built in the region. Tim Hale, Devon branch chairman of the Campaign to Protect Rural
England, said wind farms were "a disaster and should never be built". He said: "Wind turbines will
never produce 100 per cent energy. Any generator needs fuel. If you don't get any fuel you don't
generate any power. If you don't know when you're fuel is coming, it's not reliable." While a new-
generation Evolutionary Power Reactor nuclear plant costs 3.7p per kilowatt hour (kWh) to build,
maintain and run, onshore wind farms cost 5.4p per kWh while offshore turbines cost 8p per kWh.
The REF report comes after the Government unveiled a pounds100 million programme to build at
least 4,000 onshore and 3,000 offshore wind turbines. The plan could drive household bills up by
pounds260 a year. Using wind data from the Exeter-based Met Office, researchers found that in
January, when energy demand is highest, wind farms often fail to produce enough electricity.
Back-up fossil fuel plants would need to be switched on and off to make up the shortfall in supplies - a
highly inefficient process which would reduce any carbon savings from turbines.
Econ Adv – Wind = FF use

Wind power grids must be filled in by fossil fuels during peak times, hurting the grid
Daily Kos, 08 (California's Wind Energy Problems, 7/8/08,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/746/62628/443/520271)
"Furthermore the reports shows that monthly average capacity factor of wind during periods of peak demand
will reach its maximum in January at 25%. The average monthly peak demand capacity factor for the
other 11 month is under 20%. The monthly peek demand capacity factor for wind is under 10% four
months a year and is only 2% for 2 of those 4 months. Despite its truly terrible performance California
investors plan to add more than 4,000 MW of new name plate wind generation facilities, despite the
worthlessness of such facilities to meet peek electrical demand, The only reason why investors put
money into such facilities is because electricity produced by them is subsidized by the US Government.
Because California needs reliable electricity all of the wind generators must be backed up fossil fuel
burning generations plants, that must be constantly kept online burning fossil fuels in case the wind
would drop. As a method of fighting global warming building more windmills in California is about as useful as licensing rickshaws
in Los Angeles would be. "Could Charles be too hard on wind? Maybe, maybe not. The report graphically shows the summer months in
a line graph. If one scrolls down to Figure No. 5. in the above linked report, you will see that the average 2007 generation for all of the
wind farms in the ISO jurisdiction. It shows little red diamonds at the time of how much wind is produced at peak. The short answer is
very, very little. The longer answer is that on a daily basis, when we actually need the extra power, during
the peak, wind for that time of day is often less than 10% of the potential capacity factor. It picks up
later in the evening when it is not needed. Now the tax write off and subsidy Charles talks about is a Federal issue. But
much in this state, a state by the way controlled lock, stock and barrel by the Democrats despite the
faux-Republican as governor, helps further along in wind power as it's currently much in vogue among
Democrats who feel they have to wear their environmental badge on their lapels. ...but again, as Charles
noted, all these fossil plants have to be either kept steaming to back up this wind or, they keep adding
gas fired particulate generating CO2 spewing "peaker" units that are supposed to run at "peak time"
but in reality run about 6 hours a day or longer and, around the clock if need be in the summer time,
so much for cutting down on CO2 production.
Solar energy produces carbon-free electricity and meets power demands unlike wind energy
Kahn and Fialka, June 2008 (Debra and John, “A solar-motivated land rush hits the southwestern deserts”,
http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=1314, accessed on 7/7/08)
Meeting peak power demands with renewable energy. “What’s beautiful about these plants is not only do
they produce carbon-free electricity, but they generate firm, dispatchable peak power,” Resch said,
explaining that they are capable of meeting power demands at peak times of use, such as early afternoons
on hot summer days when air conditioners are fully on. Wind-generated electricity, on the other hand,
usually peaks at night, when demands for power are relatively low, and there is often no way to store it
for the next day. What is causing the land rush is that each large CSP plant may require as much as a
2-square-mile area for its solar arrays. “It would occupy the same area as a nuclear power plant, when you
take into consideration its buffer zones,” explained Resch. Desert land in the Southwest, he added, is
prized by project developers because it amounts to some of the “best solar resources in the entire
world.”
Econ Adv – Blackouts Econ Internal

Massive blackouts are inevitable- only CSP provides an economically sound method of
boosting power supply and preventing blackouts
A reliable and affordable supply of electricity is essential to protect public health and safety and to
sustain a vigorous economy in the West. Rolling blackouts in California in 2000 and 2001, low hydro
generation in the Pacific Northwest in 2001, and a power plant construction boom in Texas have drawn
attention to electricity issues in the West. All across the nation, demand for and supply of electricity
have become unbalanced in the late 1990s, but nowhere has the issue been more pressing than in the West.
With population growing in the western states, electricity demand is poised for growth for the
remainder of this decade. Both energy demand, that is the number of megawatt-hours (MWh) consumed
over the course of the year, as well as peak demand, the highest hourly demand across the hours of the year,
will continue to increase. Economic activity and population growth continue to be the most important drivers of electricity
demand. In 2001, a total of about 237,078 megawatts (MW) of capacity was installed in the West. Coalfired generation provided about
44% of the electricity generated in the West and gas-fired generation accounted for about 24%. Hydroelectric power accounts for 22% of
capacity and 18% of the generation in the states of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA). Nuclear plants provide 7% of capacity
and 11% of the energy. Of the remainder, about 1.5% comes from non-hydro renewables. For almost 20 years, little new
generating capacity has been built in the U.S. Now, however, new projects totaling over 133,747 MW by
2010 have been announced. Although not all of the announced projects will be completed, many
thousands of megawatts, primarily gas-fired combined cycle power plants, are expected to come on-
line in the West. The large amount of gasfired capacity planned may result in more volatile gas prices
for customers and will increase the reliance on fossil fuels for power generation. Energy conservation
and energy efficiency can help offset the need for new generating capacity. However, renewable energy, in
the form of wind or solar, provides one of the means of meeting the demand for power while
minimizing adverse impacts on the environment, increasing fuel diversity, and hedging against fuel
price volatility. Concentrating solar power (CSP) is the most efficient and cost-effective way to generate
electricity from the sun. Hundreds of megawatts of CSP solar-generating capacity could be brought
online within a few years and make a meaningful contribution to the energy needs of the West. Solar
energy is an abundant and underutilized energy source in the West. Solar conditions are optimal in the
Desert Southwest and, given the geographic and climatic conditions, potentially the best in the world.
In addition, these areas of premium, excellent, and good solar resources are located near major
metropolitan areas. Solar generating capacity in the form of CSP can be brought on-line rapidly,
subject to the ability to build the appropriate interconnection facilities and whatever electric
transmission is required.
Renewable power prevents blackouts – fixing the grid is a pointless endeavor until
sustainable energy is available
Smith 08, MBA, Bachelors and Masters in power engineering, (Powersmiths International Inc, “Training for
Blackouts,” www.opsxpert.com,accessed July 8, 2008).
While some claim that preventing another widespread blackout simply requires greater investment in
the existing and antiquated energy system developed early in the last century, the real solution to our
energy problems will require the United States to move on to the next stage of energy development - a
cleaner, more efficient and more decentralized system. Shifting to greater reliance on energy efficient
and renewable energy technologies, and facilitating development of distributed generation (DG) capacity
could dramatically increase the reliability of our electrical delivery systems, making Americans less
vulnerable to blackouts like the one that recently struck the Northeast.
Econ Adv – Blackouts Econ Internal
Renewable power prevents blackouts while helping United States

Smith 08, MBA, Bachelors and Masters in power engineering, (Powersmiths International Inc, “Training for
Blackouts,” www.opsxpert.com, accessed July 8, 2008).
The national policies that would achieve this transition will help ensure reliable, clean power distribution
without interruption throughout the United States. Not only will such policies solve our electricity
problems, they can help the country achieve a number of other priorities: reducing air pollutants that
cause global warming and respiratory diseases; reducing our demand for and, thereby, the price of
natural gas; and saving consumers money.
Blackouts lead to fiscal crisis

Carlson, 2004, (Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Dominican Republic Poverty
Assessment,” Country and Sector Background,” http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:YHpvkjyDmvIJ:www-
wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/01/15/000160016_20040115105201/Original/27621
1DR01PID1.DOC+bad+impacts+of+blackouts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us&client=google-coop, accessed July
12, 2008)
The Dominican Republicin early 2003 entered a period of financial crisis, precipitated by a major bank
failure, followed by macroeconomic contraction, rapid currency depreciation and inflation, increasing
incidence of electricity blackouts as power companies could not afford to import fuel, and social
impacts in the form of substantial real declines in household incomes and a an increase in poverty
incidence. The spreading fiscal crisis has also affected social programs, which have been starved of
recurrent budget support, as shortfalls in government revenues and an higher than projected public
enterprise deficit have meant rationing of resources. An overall crisis of confidence, a worsening
balance of payments position, severe fiscal constraints, an electricity sector on the brink of collapse,
and growing social tensions in the form of protests and violence, place the Dominican Republic, once one
of the fastest growing economies in the region, in an untenable fiscal situation and at risk of further, even
more severe, social unrest.
Blackouts destroy the economy

Wilson, 2006, renewable energy consultant, J.G. Press Inc., (“USING INNOVATIVE SOLAR SYSTEMS IN
COMMERCIAL BUILDING,” Sep/Oct 2006,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5378/is_200609/ai_n21400179/pg_5?tag=artBody;col1, accessed July 12,
2008)
The 2001 blackouts in California and the 2003 blackout in the Northeast clearly demonstrated that power
outages are expensive. The US Department of Energy estimates that blackout costs range from $41,000
per hour for cellular phone companies to over $6.4 million for brokerage firms. During blackouts,
standard PV systems cannot continue to generate power because they pose an electrocution hazard to
utility line workers. If configured correctly, however, PV systems can serve an emergency power
function. PV systems can charge batteries that are connected to critical electrical loads, for example.
During a blackout, the PV system shuts off, but the battery system continues to provide emergency
power without interfacing with the electrical grid. As will be seen in the following case study, PV can
also be configured to power certain off-grid loads
Econ Adv – Hi-Tech Jobs Econ Internal

High-Tech Jobs is key to US economy
Norman 08 (Jan, business reporter, “Where does O.C. rank in high-tech job market”
http://jan.freedomblogging.com/2008/07/03/oc-high-tech-jobs-14th-in-us/, July 3, accessed on July 14, 2008)
Orange County has more than 100,000 high-tech jobs, ranking it 14th nationally among major
metropolitan areas, says a new report from the AeA, a nationwidetech advocacy group formerly called the American
Electronics Association. The average salary for O.C. tech jobs is $81,000, 68% higher than the county’s
private-sector average of $48,000, the report says. And 7.4% of the county’s private sector jobs are at
high-tech firms. It is the first time since 2000 that the group has issued the report, called Cybercities: An Overview of the High-
Technology Industry in the Nation’s top 60 Cities. The tech crash halted the practice although AeA continued an annual states report.
Cybercities gives separate rankings for different types of jobs across 49 different NAICS industry codes. Here how Orange County
stands in some combined categories: The numbers are from 2006, the latest available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but still dated.
However, the general findings and rankings are still valid, said Don Hicks, executive director of AeA Orange County/Inland Empire,
with offices in Irvine, representing 120 high-tech companies. The regional breakdown gives a more complete picture of where high-tech
jobs abound, the report says, because states like California have multiple high-tech clusters, while some high-tech regions, such as the
Washington D.C.-Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia cluster, cross state lines. The value of this regional breakdown hit home two years
ago, Hicks said, when AeA discovered that California’s high-tech jobs were almost evenly divided between northern and southern
California. Before that it was commonly believed that all the high-wage tech jobs were in the Silicon Valley. “In Orange County we do
anticipate growth in technology employment, although we are affected by the decline in housing prices, rising unemployment (generally)
and credit problems that make it harder for tech companies to find funding to grow,” Hicks said. “The number one challenge for our
members is finding talent.” On the other hand, Orange County’s tech community is more diverse than Los Angeles or San Diego, which
makes it more resilient in economic downturns, he added. Orange County ranks among the top 10 nationally in six of seven NAISC
manufacturing categories, and among the top 20 in five of seven service industries. Nationwide, the top Cybercities are: New York
Metro, 316,500 jobs. Washington D.C., 295,800 jobs San Jose/Silicon Valley, 225,300 jobs Boston, 191,700 jobs Dallas-Fort Worth,
176,000 jobs Los Angeles, 172,200 jobs Chicago, 164,000 jobs Phildelphia, 132,200 jobs Seattle, 127,700 jobs Atlanta, 126,700 jobs
The top areas for average high-tech wages are:San Jose/Silicon Valley, $144,800 San Francisco, $118,500 Austin, $100,500 Oakland,
$96,900 Seattle, $96,200. AeA hopes the Cybercities report will stir political and policymaker support for high-
tech concerns.“The tech industry has long demonstrated its ability to drive the U.S. economy,” the report
says. “But it will continue to do so only if we as a country address unprecedented global competitiveness
challenges as nations around the world open their markets to trade, embrace technology and invest in
research and education.”
High-tech industries are the key drivers of the Economy
Progressive Policy Institute 01 (The Metropolitan New Economy “Part V: Innovation Capacity-High-Tech
Jobs” http://www.neweconomyindex.org/metro/part5_page1.html, April 2001, accessed on July 14, 2008)
Jobs in electronics and high-tech electronics manufacturing, software and computer-related services,
telecommunications, data processing and information services, biomedical and electromedical services as a
share of total employment. Why Is This Important? While high-tech industries make up less than 8
percent of the overall economy's output, they are key drivers of the New Economy. Just as capital- and
machinery-intensive industries (autos, chemicals, and steel) drove growth in the 1950s and '60s, high-tech
firms are the growth engines of the New Economy. And high-tech is concentrated in the nation's metro
areas: While the largest 114 metro areas account for 67 percent of all jobs, they account for 81 percent of
high-tech employment.
Econ Adv – Competitiveness Internal

Incentives key to the US solar industry- failure to push them now ensures US will always be
behind Europe in the Solar industry
While it is a bitter lesson for American policy makers, the success of wind could be a proxy for the
deployment of solar power in the U.S. Today, however, it is possible that solar power will be the next
renewable generation technology that the U.S. will import from Europe. This could happen unless
policy makers are able to get legislation enacted that results in the deployment of new solar capacity in
the West. This is because European countries, and in particular Spain and Italy, are ready to move.
Ironically, the next large international meeting on solar generating technologies is scheduled to take place in
—cloudy and overcast—Berlin. The American solar power industry is trying to bring this meeting to the
U.S., where this renewable energy technology was invented. But even if this meeting were held in the U.S.,
the solar power industry will move where it finds political will and money. And currently those places
appear to be in Europe. With little imagination, it appears likely that next generation of solar power
plants could carry the “Made in Europe” label. And it is only a matter of time when, after incubating
in Spain or Italy, solar power plants will be imported to this country. RDI Consulting sees great
similarities in the complexity of technology, engineering obstacles, efficiency, and cost reduction potential
between wind power and CSP solar generating technologies. It appears likely that the success of wind power
could be repeated for solar power. Today, a decade after the last parabolic trough solar power plant was built
near Harper Lake, California, there is ample proof that CSP plants can operate reliably over decades, and also
that, as wind has shown, technology incubation works. The success of an incubation period for solar
power is all but guaranteed. This is because, unlike similar promises by the industry to introduce electric
cars, CSP plants have already achieved a level of performance that makes them practical. They have
proven their merit in over a decade of operation in the Mojave Desert, and cost-reduction projections for CSP
technologies are based on the fact that they use ordinary technology in an extraordinary way. Therefore, it is
our belief that a large-scale deployment of solar power will bring with it considerable cost reductions. In
the light of our analysis, the secret of solar power success is simply new projects. It is up to regulators
and policy makers to make it happen. And it appears that all it takes is to follow a proven recipe.

Plan key to competiveness
Energy Efficiency Powerfully Impacts the Ability of All Companies to Compete. The rapid rise in energy costs in recent
years has added significantly to the costs of U.S. goods and made it more difficult for U.S. firms to
compete with countries with lower energy costs. Higher energy costs have a pervasive effect on the
business ecosystem. For example, transportation, manufacturing and information technology sectors are
highly sensitive to the cost of energy. In the agricultural sector, energy prices ripple up and down the
supply chain, affecting the cost of producing crops, feeding animals and transporting foodstuffs.
Initiatives that increase energy efficiency can powerfully benefit the competitiveness of U.S. business.
Energy quality and reliability are also crucial. According to a study by Sandia National Laboratories, annual financial
losses from power disruptions in the U.S. amount to $150 billion and one-third of all computer problems are related to poor power
quality.
Solar key to competiveness and economy

Accessed July 9, 2008
significant contributor to the nation's economy. Mounting foreign investments have eroded U.S.
market share and have overtaken our R&D lead on the technology front. To secure our future, we must
strengthen and expand our investments. We must take our core R&D and other intellectual resources
and integrate them with U.S. industry's best interests — resulting in sound and well-conceived
programs and sustained investments that clearly support and guide U.S. PV industry leadership
worldwide. Sustained partnerships between the U.S. solar electric industry and national laboratories and
Solar key to maintaining competiveness

DOE 08, “Why PV is Important to the Economy,” 7/11/08,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/to_economy.html, Accessed July 9, 2008
Electricity from the sun is a versatile technology that can be used for applications from the very small to the very large, from grid-
connected systems to grid-independent systems, to hot water, space and industrial process heating, and power plants. Increasingly,
in a competitive market, the U.S. electrical grid will come to rely on distributed energy resources. The
modular nature of the technology enables us to construct distributed electricity-generating systems in
increments as demands grow, to improve supply reliability, and to moderate distribution and
transmission costs. In addition, many regions of the United States are becoming limited by
transmission capacities and local emission controls, but solar electric power systems can be easily sited
at the point of use with no environmental impact. And because sunlight is widely available, we can
build geographically diverse solar electric systems that are less vulnerable to international energy
politics, volatile fossil-fuel-based markets, and transmission failures.

Solar energy solves competitiveness, economy and national security
Though finding solutions to the energy challenge is fundamental to the economic and national security
of the United States, ESIS leaders noted that, during the campaign to date, there has not been a
commensurate intensive focus on a comprehensive energy policy. If the United States is to remain
competitive, we know that we must secure access to adequate energy supplies, increase the nation’s
energy productivity, maximize the economic value of each unit of energy consumed, and minimize the
environmental impact of energy choices. Yet there has been comparatively little discussion about the role
of government in creating the environment for progress toward global energy security.
Solar costs are coming down- larger projects key to competitiveness

Kellerman cites several factors to explain the burst of interest and activity in solar power. The larger size of
solar projects are bringing home economies of scale and beginning to drive costs down, in certain places, to
the 10 to 11 cents/kWh "zip code," he said. This gives solar power the potential to be rationally competitive
with other renewable resources at a time when the industry is suffering from the "indigestion of too much
wind in the portfolio."
Speeding up renewable development key to the industry

Joshua Bar-Lev 07, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Brightsource Energy, Interconnection Issues Facing
utility-Scale Solar Projects, 12/11/2007, http://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20071211083752-Bar-
Lev,%20Brightsource%20Energy.pdf
There are many public policy and private investment goals that renewable developers like BSE are trying to
achieve with our projects. I have tried to display these private and public policy goals in the chart before you.
On-time, on-budget delivery of renewable energy, and 100% performance of contractual obligations is the
only way to satisfy investors and lenders, satisfy the states’ renewable portfolio standard (RPS) goals, the
DOE’s renewable energy objectives, the public’s desire to address climate change costeffectively, and also
meet the commitments agreed to in power supply contracts. Fulfillment of those goals also helps meet the
Energy Policy Act of 2005’s goals and the goals of many states to encourage renewable energy.
Econ Adv – Jobs Internal

Solar Plants open jobs
Schott 2008 (SCHOTT North America, Inc: glass made of ideas 06-10-2008, Poll Reports 94% of Americans Say
It’s Important for the U.S. to Develop and Use Solar Energy
http://www.us.schott.com/english/news/press_releases.html?NID=238)
“Solar development means job growth for Americans, by Americans, in an industry that will benefit
America.” said Dr. Gerald Fine, President & CEO of SCHOTT North America. “Rather than rely on
foreign sources for fuel, the U.S. can aspire to become the world’s leader in clean energy.”
Solar Energy provides jobs

Green Jobs 08 (July 2008, green jobs: New energy, new people
http://www.greenjobs.com/Public/info/industry_background.aspx?id=15)
Naturally [solar] growth has been accompanied by the creation of new jobs. Interestingly, because the
technology is fairly young and has yet to attain economies of scale, it has also created more jobs per $
invested or MW installed than traditional energy sources. The US PV Industry Roadmap gives the
estimates, And these comparisons are supported by studies in Europe and Australia. Solar, like other
renewable industries, is still fragmented with many small companies complementing the larger OEMs. Even
the OEMs are still small compared to other industries with the largest having a revenues of only a few
hundred million dollars. For the small players, solar may be only part of their activities. This fragmentation
makes it difficult to obtain accurate figures for employment but it is possible to obtain estimates that are close
enough for our purposes. We know that the US solar electric industry employed 20,000 people directly in
the year 1999 and a further 150,000 indirectly in industries such as glass and steel manufacture, electrical
and plumbing contracting, architecture and system design, and battery and electrical equipment manufacture.
Also, the European solar thermal industry employed more than 10,000 in 1997 in the design, manufacture,
marketing, installation and maintenance of systems. (Michael Renner, Worldwatch paper 152, 2000).
Solar Power solves unemployment

Solar power provides a unique opportunity for creating jobs and reducing our trade deficits. It reduces
energy imports and dependence upon foreign oil, which mitigates the risk of fuel price volatility. Solar
power improves grid reliability and supplies electricity when and where it is most limited and most
expensive, making it a highly valuable and strategic contribution: solar electricity can guarantee a
more stable energy economy. The Environment – Photovoltaic (PV) technology has very little impact on
our environment: it is one of the cleanest generation technologies available. In its operation, PV does not
produce any air pollution or hazardous wastes. In contrast, traditional power sources are the primary source
of groundlevel air pollution, which causes severe health and environmental problems and is obviously a
visible eyesore to all communities. Furthermore, PV doesn’t release greenhouse gases, and therefore is a
strong measure for mitigating global warming. Global warming is the cause of rising sea levels and regional
climate shifts – both of which have a sever impact on ecosystems, agriculture, and coastal areas. One more
point to consider is that PV has no mechanical or moving parts, making its operation silent. The Energy Grid
– PV has an elegant design which allows it to be scaled and placed directly where power is consumed, or
where the energy grid needs to shoreup capacity and energy for evolving demand. It is mobile and can be
relocated with ease. In addition, it does not need to transport or use combustible fuels from divergent regions
of the world; it uses a natural, abundant and free fuel source – the Sun. Because of this it can guarantee
energy at times when demand is at its peak – seasonal and cyclical variations are well matched. All of
this makes photovoltaics a sensible and secure candidate for enabling energy assurance. The grid can be
designed to be redundant with a fixed energy price, as opposed to the shaky centralized infrastructure that is
dependent upon unreliable fuel sources and is open to disruption from disasters either natural or manmade.
Just consider how differently we would respond to a hurricane if every fourth house had enough power for a
refrigerator and some tools. People could get right to work on recovery and not wait on ice. Medicines and
food would not spoil. When the grid is gone, solar can save the day.

Expanded renewable power plants key to jobs
SEIA.pdf
The economic impact of new renewable energy projects is immense – hundreds to thousands of jobs to
develop and operate these power plants, bringing new tax dollars into primarily rural communities, where
unemployment is high and a boost to the local economies are sorely needed.
Renewable power plants reduce balance of payments

SEIA.pdf
Renewable power plants reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and imports, enhancing our national
security, improving our balance of payments, and stimulating our economy.
Solar boosts employment

Newsweek 07 (October 8, “The Power of the Sun” http://www.newsweek.com/id/41912/page/2, July 11, 2008)
It's becoming a common bet. With oil prices near record highs and more companies concerned about their
carbon footprints, workers are finding job opportunities in the emerging green economy. Companies are
hiring scientists to work on renewable-energy technology and business people to market earth-friendly
products. Even if some of these nascent companies falter, there's widespread conviction that this sector
will become one of the country's hottest employers. "This is the challenge of the 21st century … and it's
not going away," says Kevin Doyle, founder of the consulting firm Green Economy. It's impossible to say
precisely how many people work in green jobs—partly because there's no formal definition of the term. Does
a clerk stocking organic produce at Whole Foods Market qualify? How about an engineer working to make a
coal-fired power plant run more efficiently? Meanwhile, in sectors like solar energy and biofuels, payrolls
are growing so rapidly it's hard for researchers to keep an accurate count. Despite the lack of precise
numbers, all observers agree the ranks are growing quickly. Based on the flow of venture capital, K. R.
Sridhar, CEO of the fuel-cell start-up Bloom Energy, believes the clean-tech sector could produce
50,000 new jobs by 2010. (By way of comparison, General Motors' hourly work force, which briefly went
on strike last week, currently numbers 73,000.) Peter Beadle, president of Greenjobs.com, cites estimates
that the solar sector alone could employ 2 million people by 2020—more Americans than currently
work as elementary-school teachers.

Solar industry gaining hiring power
McGinn 07 writer for Newsweek (Daniel, The Power of the Sun, http://www.newsweek.com/id/41912/page/1
accessed 7-11-2008)
It's becoming a common bet. With oil prices near record highs and more companies concerned about
their carbon footprints, workers are finding job opportunities in the emerging green economy.
Companies are hiring scientists to work on renewable-energy technology and business people to
market earth-friendly products. Even if some of these nascent companies falter, there's widespread
conviction that this sector will become one of the country's hottest employers. "This is the challenge of
the 21st century … and it's not going away," says Kevin Doyle, founder of the consulting firm Green
Economy. It's impossible to say precisely how many people work in green jobs—partly because there's no
formal definition of the term. Does a clerk stocking organic produce at Whole Foods Market qualify? How
about an engineer working to make a coal-fired power plant run more efficiently? Meanwhile, in sectors
like solar energy and biofuels, payrolls are growing so rapidly it's hard for researchers to keep an accurate
count. Despite the lack of precise numbers, all observers agree the ranks are growing quickly. Based on
the flow of venture capital, K. R. Sridhar, CEO of the fuel-cell start-up Bloom Energy, believes the clean-
tech sector could produce 50,000 new jobs by 2010. (By way of comparison, General Motors' hourly
work force, which briefly went on strike last week, currently numbers 73,000.) Peter Beadle, president of
Greenjobs.com, cites estimates that the solar sector alone could employ 2 million people by 2020—more
Americans than currently work as elementary-school teachers.
Econ Adv – Modeling Internal

Decreasing renewable energy prices leads to global modeling and US competitiveness
That, at least, is the view from the rich world. But poorer, rapidly developing countries are also taking more
of an interest in renewable energy sources, despite assertions to the contrary by some Western politicians and
businessmen. It is true that China is building coal-fired power stations at a blazing rate. But it also has a large
wind-generation capacity, which is expected to grow by two-thirds this year, and is the world?s second-
largest manufacturer of solar panels—not to mention having the largest number of solar-heated rooftop hot-
water systems in its buildings.
Brazil, meanwhile, has the world?s second-largest (just behind America) and most economically honest
biofuel industry, which already provides 40% of the fuel consumed by its cars and should soon supply 15%
of its electricity, too (through the burning of sugarcane waste). South Africa is leading the effort to develop a
new class of safe and simple nuclear reactor—not renewable energy in the strict sense, but carbon-free and
thus increasingly welcome. These countries, and others like them, are prepared to look beyond fossil fuels.
They will get their energy where they can. So if renewables and other alternatives can compete on cost, the
poor and the rich world alike will adopt them.
That, however, requires innovation. Such innovation is most likely to come out of the laboratories of rich
countries. At a recent debate at Columbia University, which The Economist helped to organise, Mr Khosla
defended the proposition, "The United States will solve the climate-change problem". The Californian
venture capitalist argued that if cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels are developed, simple economics will
ensure their adoption throughout the world. He also insisted that the innovation which will create those
alternatives will come almost entirely out of America.
Econ Adv – CSP Solves Price Shocks

CSP solves vulnerability to price shocks
CSP could have local economic development benefits because long-term fuel costs associated with
conventional electricity generation (e.g. natural gas, coal) are replaced by operations and maintenance
costs (i.e. labor).13,,1415 CSP thus provides a hedge against the volatile costs seen in energy prices
during the past several years.
CSP solves price shocks

Adding CSP to the generation mix of a State contributes to a reliable and diverse energy supply, a
better use of natural resources within the State, and better air quality. CSP can also serve as a hedge against
the high and volatile costs seen in energy prices the past several years. In California, for example, the
average cost of natural gas in 1999 was about $2.20 per million BTU’s. It rose to over $8/MMBtu in 2001,
fell to $3/MMBtu in 2002, and back up to $7/MMBtu by 2005.56 In contrast, the solar energy used as fuel
by CSP systems is stable. The power purchase agreement determines the cost of CSP power for the
duration of the agreement (typically for 20 years). Being an indigenous resource, solar energy is not
subject to disruptions of supply or market conditions that can plague natural gas (and to a lesser extent,
coal-fired) power plants.
Econ Adv – Solar industry K to Econ

Decreasing renewable energy prices leads to global modeling and US competitiveness
That, at least, is the view from the rich world. But poorer, rapidly developing countries are also taking more
of an interest in renewable energy sources, despite assertions to the contrary by some Western politicians and
businessmen. It is true that China is building coal-fired power stations at a blazing rate. But it also has a large
wind-generation capacity, which is expected to grow by two-thirds this year, and is the world?s second-
largest manufacturer of solar panels—not to mention having the largest number of solar-heated rooftop hot-
water systems in its buildings.
Brazil, meanwhile, has the world?s second-largest (just behind America) and most economically honest
biofuel industry, which already provides 40% of the fuel consumed by its cars and should soon supply 15%
of its electricity, too (through the burning of sugarcane waste). South Africa is leading the effort to develop a
new class of safe and simple nuclear reactor—not renewable energy in the strict sense, but carbon-free and
thus increasingly welcome. These countries, and others like them, are prepared to look beyond fossil fuels.
They will get their energy where they can. So if renewables and other alternatives can compete on cost, the
poor and the rich world alike will adopt them.
That, however, requires innovation. Such innovation is most likely to come out of the laboratories of rich
countries. At a recent debate at Columbia University, which The Economist helped to organise, Mr Khosla
defended the proposition, "The United States will solve the climate-change problem". The Californian
venture capitalist argued that if cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels are developed, simple economics will
ensure their adoption throughout the world. He also insisted that the innovation which will create those
alternatives will come almost entirely out of America.
Investment capital available for solar

GE EFS already has said it plans to invest about $50 million a year in what Walsh called "tech equity," which
he defined as venture capital investments in emerging "clean" energy solutions such as biofuels, demand
response, ocean power delivery, energy storage, and solar photovoltaics. In addition, spurred by Nevada
Solar One, the company is now taking a harder look at direct investment in solar projects. "Solar thermal is
picking up," said Walsh. Solar power used to be the almost exclusive domain of venture capital and, from a
hard-nosed developer or banker's point of view, the domain of what the industry dismissively refers to as
"science experiments." But the larger scale of the solar projects now being proposed has begun to attract
talent and money from developers and financiers that think big, that is, utility scale, 100 MW or more per
project.
GE EFS= General Electric Energy Financial Services

Econ Adv – Plan Key to Solar Industry

Access to federal lands key to the solar industry
O’Carroll 08 US calls off solar moratorium Eoin O'Carroll | 07.03.08 Christian Science Monitor
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/blog-entry/?topic=14
The Associated Press notes that, while there are currently no solar facilities on federally administered
land, having the opportunity to build them there is thought to be important for the survival of the
fledgling solar industry: BLM has yet to approve a solar project on federal land; the solar projects
already built or under way in this country are on private property. Still, industry officials already
impatient about the BLM’s pace worried that putting a stop to new applications would allow other
industries to lay claim to federal land that could go to solar. They feared it would also send the wrong
signal to potential investors just as the solar industry is getting started. “Hitting the brakes before
we’d really gotten off the ground was definitely a scary prospect for the industry,” said Katherine
Gensler, manager of regulatory and legislative affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Econ Adv – Plan Key to Econ

Solar industry is key to the overall economy – high-skill labor, investor confidence, decreasing
operating costs
Accessed July 9, 2008
The solar energy industry, which encompasses technology, research, manufacturing, training, and
installation, has a direct impact on many facets of U.S. commerce. Since the 1970s, when the solar
energy market was virtually nonexistent, the business of solar energy has seen 100-fold price decreases,
which has led to the production of millions of watts per year and created a national market worth
about $2 billion. The current U.S. solar industry employs some 20,000 men and women in high-value,
high-tech jobs, representing about 300 companies, universities, and utilities. And by 2020, the industry is
expected to grow toward a workforce of 150,000 ("Energy Alternatives and Jobs." 2000. Renewable
Energy World, 3(6):November/December, pp. 26-32). Jobs associated with the solar energy industry are in
engineering, science, management, architecture, construction, planning, education, sales, skilled labor,
finance, and design. And the steady decrease in the costs of the technology has private investors and
entrepreneurs perking up their ears as well. Recognizing the growing market for solar energy, companies
tapping the power of the sun range from small-installation contractors to large multinational corporations.
These companies are investing millions of dollars to increase their market share by diversifying
product lines and improving product performance. PV cells and modules and solar-thermal collectors
primarily define the current state of solar manufacturing in the United States. The solar industry
continues to grow steadily as costs for solar systems decline in the expanding markets for renewable
energy. Since the late 1990s, the market for solar energy has grown at an annual rate of 20%. The solar
industry estimates that growth rates above 25% annually are possible, resulting in a $27 billion market
by 2020. With technological innovations lowering costs and increased market growth leading to new
jobs and export opportunities, solar energy can become a major high-tech growth industry that
contributes significantly to our economic growth and improves our trade balance.
Solar key to economy and security

IEEE 2/08/07, US Competitiveness: The Innovation Challenge,
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/innovation/index.html - accessed July 9th 2008
At the dawn of the 21st Century, America desperately needs a new national competitiveness strategy that
reflects the realities of the post-Cold War world. Today we face a new, more rough and tumble form of
global economic competition, especially in the science, engineering and technology based sectors that have
fueled U.S. prosperity since World War II. Competing successfully in this new global environment is
essential for our national and economic security and to ensure that the U.S. is able to create high-value
jobs and maintain a vital national engineering capability. For those reasons, IEEE-USA is actively urging
Congress and the Administration to pass laws that will strengthen U.S. competitiveness and innovation as
part of our overall Innovation Initiative.
Competitiveness and Energy key to economy

It is clear that the United States faces serious challenges and a new competitiveness landscape as it
contends with the twin challenges of energy security and sustainability. America’s continued economic
growth and prosperity is at risk if we do not improve our energy productivity. Though the policy and
regulatory response to these issues is still in flux–and can vary considerably at the state, national and
international levels–leading companies are not waiting to act. As they do so, they are realizing significant
cost savings and new opportunities for top line growth.
Econ Adv – Plan Key to Econ
Replacing fossil fuels with solar energy prevents economic collapse.

Jon Rynn, Professor of Political Science at Baruch College and advisory board of Sanders Research Associates,
2007, “Why the sky is falling, and how to save the U.S. and the planet,”
http://economicreconstruction.com/sites/economicreconstruction.com/static/JonRynn/Whytheskyisfalling.pdf
In order to decrease the amount of global warming we need to stop using fossil fuels. In order to avoid the
problems of peak oil we need to stop using fuel for transportation. In order to avoid ecosystem collapse,
we need to protect forests and oceans, and reorient the agricultural system to organic, local, non-irrigation
intensive forms of forming. In order to prevent economic collapse the U.S. needs to rebuild the
manufacturing sector. How can all of these goals be accomplished? To an amazing degree, most of these
problems can be solved by reorienting the transportation system to rail and replacing fossil fuels with
solar and wind energy. If such a transformation were to take place, global warming would be minimized and
peak oil would not be a problem. By building rail, wind, and solar industries, the manufacturing sector of the
U.S. (and other regions) could be made healthy and sustainable. About 2 out of 3 barrels of oil in the U.S. are
consumed by three transportation technologies, automobiles (41%), trucks, (13%), and airplanes (8% -- road
pavement takes up an additional 3 %, and oil used to refine transportation fuel another 2%). Rail freight is eight
times more energy efficient than trucks, and so all transcontinental and long-haul freight should be carried by
electrified rail, which would require construction of new rail lines and equipment.
Plan creates jobs

Joshua Bar-Lev 07, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Brightsource Energy, Oversight Hearing Before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, April 19, 2007,
It would create a lot of jobs. Four gigawatts would create--as I was saying before--12,000, 13,000
construction jobs, 1,100 permanent operations jobs, tremendous increase in gross state output because
of all the dollars that are being generated, and an industry would be built. I always use sort of Detroit
or Silicon Valley as an example. We have the resources in this country and the brain power to create
literally a whole new industry in the west.
Econ Adv – Impact

Replacing fossil fuels with solar energy prevents economic collapse.
Jon Rynn, Professor of Political Science at Baruch College and advisory board of Sanders Research Associates,
2007, “Why the sky is falling, and how to save the U.S. and the planet,”
http://economicreconstruction.com/sites/economicreconstruction.com/static/JonRynn/Whytheskyisfalling.pdf
In order to decrease the amount of global warming we need to stop using fossil fuels. In order to avoid
the problems of peak oil we need to stop using fuel for transportation. In order to avoid ecosystem collapse,
we need to protect forests and oceans, and reorient the agricultural system to organic, local, non-irrigation
intensive forms of forming. In order to prevent economic collapse the U.S. needs to rebuild the
manufacturing sector. How can all of these goals be accomplished? To an amazing degree, most of these
problems can be solved by reorienting the transportation system to rail and replacing fossil fuels with solar
and wind energy. If such a transformation were to take place, global warming would be minimized and
peak oil would not be a problem. By building rail, wind, and solar industries, the manufacturing sector of
the U.S. (and other regions) could be made healthy and sustainable. About 2 out of 3 barrels of oil in the U.S.
are consumed by three transportation technologies, automobiles (41%), trucks, (13%), and airplanes (8% --
road pavement takes up an additional 3 %, and oil used to refine transportation fuel another 2%). Rail freight
is eight times more energy efficient than trucks, and so all transcontinental and long-haul freight should be
carried by electrified rail, which would require construction of new rail lines and equipment. High-speed,
electrified intercity train lines have replaced much of the air travel within France, and could do so for most
trips of hundreds of miles within the U.S., if not even transcontinental ones. The airplane and truck industries
receive massive subsidies and governmental support, and they would fight tooth and nail to keep their
privileges. At the same time, the rail industry receives a trivial amount of support, and even has to pay right
of way taxes on rail lines while highways are tax-free. It is the automobile, however, that is the most difficult
industrial sector to tinker with. In Europe, taxes have kept a gallon of gasoline at approximately five dollars
per gallon for decades; no politician in the U.S. can even mention the idea of a fifty cent tax without getting
skewered. I am not, actually, proposing a gasoline tax, although it would certainly be a good idea, but
something else: to construct an alternative transportation system so that car drivers have the choice to use
mass transit if they so desired. The current highway system offers a ready-made right of way, that is, new
routes would not have to be bought and haggled for, a lane or two of particular highways could be used for
intercity and light rail instead. The denser the area in terms of residences and commercial buildings the easier
it is to justify light rail lines, and most medium-to-large cities could justify such expenditures. The Interstate
Highway System was built with 90% Federal funding. Of course, the current Bush administration dislikes
rail, so it has reduced the Federal funding for light rail from 80% to 50%, but this could be easily remedied.
Many cities have approved or are seriously discussing light rail plans. Even suburbs and sprawling cities like
Los Angeles could profit from light rail, and many, like Los Angeles, once had light rail before the Highway
Lobby (automobile, oil, tire, highway construction industries) bought them out and replaced them with lower
quality bus systems. At this point, unfortunately, lower density light rail would probably involve the
construction of parking structures at the light rail major stations to encourage people to take light rail for
fairly long trips, trying to limit car use to short trips.
Pollution – FF = SO2
Burning fossil fuels reduces global warming in the long run.
New York Times, 91 (William Stevens,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1430F934A35751C0A967958260)
Efforts to head off a predicted global warming by reducing the burning of fossil fuels, as is widely being
urged, could actually worsen the warming in the short run, scientists say. Fossil fuels like coal and oil emit
carbon dioxide when they are burned, and the carbon dioxide traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere
much like a greenhouse does. Climatologists predict that if the emission of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases like methane and chlorofluorocarbons continues at current rates, the average surface
temperature of the Earth will rise 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century, causing widespread
ecological, agricultural and social damage. But in a less-noticed phenomenon, the burning of fossil fuels
also emits sulfur dioxide particles, which scientists refer to as aerosols. These reflect sunlight, cooling
the Earth and partly offsetting whatever warming may be taking place. A reduction in the burning of
fossil fuels would reduce this cooling effect. The resulting rise in temperature could more than compensate
for the cooling that would be achieved by the accompanying reduction in carbon dioxide in the next 10 to 30
years, according to a study reported in today's issue of the British journal Nature by Dr. T. M. L. Wigley, a
climatologist at the University of East Anglia in England. Warming Could Be More Intense This means that
global warming could be more intense than expected for up to three decades, Dr. Wigley found, after which
the reduction in burning fossil fuels would begin to bring about a global cooling. The reason for the lag is
that the effect of carbon dioxide reductions would be felt only over decades, since that is how long it takes
them to work their way through the ocean-atmosphere climate system. By contrast, the effect of atmospheric
sulfur dioxide particles is felt almost immediately and dies away rapidly once emissions stop. "If you
instantly stopped burning fossil fuels, then the aerosols would fall out in a couple of days," said Dr. James E.
Hansen, a climatologist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "The greenhouse gases stay
there for 100 years, so you'd actually increase the heating" in the short term. "But in the long run, you'd
decrease the temperature and the heating."
Pollution – Fish Impacts

Acid rain kills fish species
Pace Law School Energy Project, 2000, Air Quality Issues of Electricity Production,
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=2
The burning of fossil fuels generates air pollution that scientists have determined is the major cause of acid
rain. Power plants, along with factories and vehicles that also burn fossil fuels, all emit sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). When combined with moisture in the atmosphere, these pollutants
are returned to the earth as acids. This process is known as "deposition" and occurs when it rains or snows,
but it can also occur when dust settles out of the atmosphere during dry periods. Acid precursors can be
carried in the atmosphere for several days and travel several hundred miles downwind of the power plant
stack before being deposited on the earth's surface. Because of prevailing winds, the northeastern United
States and Canada receive significant quantities of acid precursors from coal-fired power plants in states
stretching from Missouri to the west and Pennsylvania to the east. What are the consequences of acid rain?
Acid rain is linked to a range of negative impacts on the natural world as well as human environments:
Aquatic impacts Scientists believe that acid rain is responsible for the dramatic disappearance of brook
trout and other fish species from pristine lakes and streams. These treasured water bodies receive acid
directly from the atmosphere and from runoff from the surrounding watershed. Of the lakes and streams
studied in a National Surface Water Survey conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, acid rain
was determined to cause acidity in 75 percent of the acidic lakes and 50 percent of the acidic streams
analyzed. Some lakes are particularly susceptible to acid rain since the underlying soil has limited ability to
neutralize, or "buffer," the acids. Lakes suffering from chronic acidity can be found in several regions of the
United States and Canada, including the Adirondacks, the mid-Appalachian highlands, the upper Midwest
and the high elevation West.
Pollution – Birds Impacts

Bird numbers dropping because of acid rain
BBC News, August 12, 2002, Forests Fall Silent From Acid Rain,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2189151.stm
Birds could disappear from North American forests because of acid rain. Scientists have found that
the pollutant is leading to a decline of one species at least. It seems to affect the breeding habits of the
wood thrush. The bird lives on mountain slopes of the Eastern United States when it visits to breed during
the summer. A drop in numbers has been seen since the 1960s. Research into its disappearance has
focused until now on habitat loss and destruction. Volunteer help In the latest study, a team at Cornell
University looked at a possible link between acid rain, soil acidity and impaired breeding behaviour.
They were helped by an army of amateur volunteers who collected data on the wood thrush across its
territory range. The scientists found a significant negative effect of acid rain on the likelihood of the
bird breeding. "When looking for causes of declines we have to consider changes to the environment in
addition to simple habitat loss or fragmentation," Ralph Hames of Cornell University told BBC News Online.
Birds provide essential ecosystem services

Robert J. Marquis, Department of Biology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, et al June 2008, “Ecosystem
Services Provided By Birds,” Ecology and Conservation Biology, Vol 1134,
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1134/1/25
Ecosystem services are natural processes that benefit humans. Birds contribute the four types of
services recognized by the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—provisioning, regulating, cultural,
and supporting services. In this review, we concentrate primarily on supporting services, and to a lesser
extent, provisioning and regulating services. As members of ecosystems, birds play many roles, including
as predators, pollinators, scavengers, seed dispersers, seed predators, and ecosystem engineers. These
ecosystem services fall into two subcategories: those that arise via behavior (like consumption of agricultural
pests) and those that arise via bird products (like nests and guano). Characteristics of most birds make them
quite special from the perspective of ecosystem services. Because most birds fly, they can respond to
irruptive or pulsed resources in ways generally not possible for other vertebrates. Migratory species link
ecosystem processes and fluxes that are separated by great distances and times. Although the economic
value to humans contributed by most, if not all, of the supporting services has yet to be quantified, we
believe they are important to humans. Our goals for this review are 1) to lay the groundwork on these
services to facilitate future efforts to estimate their economic value, 2) to highlight gaps in our knowledge,
and 3) to point to future directions for additional research.
Pollution – Ecosystem Impacts

Sulfur dioxide kills forests and buildings, causing costly repairs
Jeff Kahn, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, 8/11/1989, “LBL Scientist Works
on Reducing Power Plant Pollution,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, http://www.lbl.gov/Science-
Articles/Archive/power-plant-pollution-control.html
In the U.S., about 50 percent of NOx emissions and 80 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions result from
the burning of fuel in power plants, homes, and offices. By reducing emissions of these compounds,
LBL's scrubber technology attacks both acid rain and tropospheric ozone, a primary constituent of urban
smog. Acid rain stresses and kills forests, stunts crops, creates sterile lakes, and damages buildings,
causing billions of dollars in harm to the environment. It forms when sulfur dioxide and oxides of
nitrogen are emitted into the troposphere and are chemically converted into sulfuric and nitric acids. Nitric
oxide, if emitted from a power plant, is oxidized to nitrogen dioxide, giving urban smog its characteristic
brown hue, and inducing the formation of ozone. More than half of America's metropolitan areas have ozone
levels that exceed federal health standards. Itching eyes, coughing, chest pains, and shortness of breath are
the immediate health effects. Still inconclusive evidence indicates that chronic exposure to the ozone levels
common in American cities may cause irreversible lung damage and also damage the immune system.
Additionally, ozone causes serious injury to the foliage of plants. In Maine's Acadia National Park, for
instance, two thirds of the white pines have been damaged by ozone.
Sulfur dioxide kills fish, plants, trees

Audrey N. Tomera, Professor at the University of Southern Illinois, 2001, Understanding Basic Ecological
Concepts, print.google.com
Wet deposition refers to acid rain and snow. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the same troublesome
gases responsible for regional haze, are mainly responsible for acid deposition. These gases react with
water in the atmosphere, forming weak solutions of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. The acids travel within the
air masses in which they were produced. When the clouds in these air masses release their moisture in
the form of rain and snow, the acids fall into lakes, oceans, and forests. The result is the killing of fish,
water plants, and trees.
Sulfur dioxide hurts plants

Griffiths, 03 (Integrated Pest Management Modelling Specialist/OMAF,
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/01-015.htm)
Major sources of sulfur dioxide are coal-burning operations, especially those providing electric power
and space heating. Sulfur dioxide emissions can also result from the burning of petroleum and the
smelting of sulfur containing ores. Sulfur dioxide enters the leaves mainly through the stomata
(microscopic openings) and the resultant injury is classified as either acute or chronic. Acute injury
(Figure 2) is caused by absorption of high concentrations of sulfur dioxide in a relatively short time.
The symptoms appear as 2-sided (bifacial) lesions that usually occur between the veins and occasionally
along the margins of the leaves. The colour of the necrotic area can vary from a light tan or near white to an
orange-red or brown depending on the time of year, the plant species affected and weather conditions.
Recently expanded leaves usually are the most sensitive to acute sulfur dioxide injury, the very youngest and
oldest being somewhat more resistant. Chronic injury is caused by long-term absorption of sulfur dioxide
at sub-lethal concentrations. The symptoms appear as a yellowing or chlorosis of the leaf, and occasionally
as a bronzing on the under surface of the leaves.
Pollution – Ecosystem Impacts

Sulfur dioxide emissions lead to extinction
McKenzie, 08, “Causes, Effects, and Solutions of Acid Rain”
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/9111/DOCS.HTML
Everybody has heard of Acid-Rain, everybody knows what it is, but everybody doesn't know what Acid-Rain
does. Acid-Rain has effects that just doesn't effect one place in the forest but it effects most of the forest.
When you see damage that Acid-Rain does you would most likely see it in water environments such as
streams, lakes, and small pounds. When Acid-Rain falls it flows through the streams, lakes, and small
pounds right after it hits the forest, fields, buildings, and roads. But only sometimes Acid-Rain can fall
directly in the water. When Acid-Rain falls more and more different types of fish and other aquatic plants and
animals that live in theses waters decrease by the day... week... year. Because Acid-Rain causes the loss of
acid-sensitive plants and animals, and fish that rely on these organisms for food may also be affected. So just
by Acid-Rain falling into water that is some of the things that Acid-Rain can do but there is a lot more.
When Acid-Rain comes down it hits the plants and kills the plants being unable to grow back. The soil
will dry up and stay hard until it is watered if this continues then there will be no more plants on Earth
and if there is no more plants on Earth then all humans will die because plants have air and without
air people will die. Acid-Rain can effect not only water and water environments but it can effect land. Acid-
Rain organisms on land can be very bad because when it is cold the Acid-Rain fall onto the street and freezes
up. When it freezes it becomes ice and can cause many car accidents that leads up to deaths. When Acid-
Rains falls it kills animals homes all at the same time leaving nothing but broken trees and hard soil. As a
result of their homes being near the water environments their food that comes from the water will most likely
to harder to get because the population would be decreasing. People help with Acid-Rain in away because
we pollute the air with our cars and other things that give off gas and Acid-Rain pollutes the air as it come
down so nature and humans are polluting the air. Acid- Rain do not effect just water environments and land
but one of the serious side effects of acid rain on human is "respiratory" problems. The dioxide and nitrogen
oxide emission gives risk to respiratory problems such as dry coughs, asthma, headaches, eye, nose, and
throat irritation. Polluted rainfall is especially harmful to those who suffer from asthma or those who have a
hard time breathing. But even healthy people can have their lungs damaged by acid air and rain. Acid rain
can aggravate a person's ability to breathe and may increase disease which could lead to death. The
United States provide a glimpse of such costs. That acid precipitation destroys, overall, $13,000 million
annually in the eastern part of the nation and could cause $1,750 million yearly in forest damage, $8,300
million in crop damage in the Ohio River basin alone by about the year 2000 and $40 million in health costs
in the State of Minnesota. The only cost-effective solution to the problem, according to many people, is to
reduce emissions at their point of origin. Anyone investigating acid rain should update these figures. In
conclusion, all these things kills off the forest in so many different ways if it is not by Acid-Rain then it is by
cars. When we do things we are killing our self. So Acid-Rain can kill things that we need so know
everybody knows about what it and everybody has heard of it and everybody knows what it does now.
Pollution – Ag Impacts
Sulfur dioxide reduces crop productivity and affects ecosystems
DEWHA 8/21/06, Sulfur Dioxide Fact Sheet, Department of the Environment, Water, Herritage and the Arts of
Australia, http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/77.html
What effect might sulfur dioxide have on the environment? Even low concentrations of sulfur dioxide can
harm plants and trees and reduce crop productivity. Higher levels, and especially the acidic deposits
from acid rain, will adversely affect both land and water ecosystems. How might sulfur dioxide enter the
environment? Industrial emissions of sulfur dioxide can produce elevated, but still low level concentrations
in the atmosphere around the source. Volcanic eruptions, while sporadic, are significant contributors to sulfur
dioxide in their local area, and contribute to global background levels of sulfur dioxide. Where in the
environment does sulfur dioxide end up? Sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by soils and
plants. It is also captured within and below clouds and in certain circumstances may raise the acidity of
the resultant rain. This is known as acid rain, which occurs in Europe and North America, but acid rain,
from sulfur dioxide, has not been documented in Australia
Pollution – SO2 = Acid Rain

Sulfur dioxide is a primary cause of acid rain
EPA, 12/28/07, Clean Energy, http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/glossary.html
Acid rain is a term used to describe several ways that acidic compounds fall out of the atmosphere, causing a
variety of ground-level environmental effects. These effects include damage to forests and soils, fish and
other living things, and human health. Acid rain also reduces how clearly we can see through the air, an effect
called visibility reduction. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are the primary causes of acid rain. In the
United States, about two-thirds of all sulfur dioxide and one-quarter of all nitrogen oxides come from
electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal. Acid rain occurs when these gases
react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. These
acidic compounds fall to the earth as acidic rain, fog, and snow, or as dry deposited gases and particles that
can be blown to the ground by the wind. In fact, prevailing winds can blow the compounds that cause acid
rain across state and national borders, and sometimes over hundreds of miles.
Acid rain harms animals, vegetation, and buildings

Idaho Dept of Environmental Quality, 08, http://www.deq.state.id.us/air/educ_tools/air_tips_kids_fs.pdf
Combinations of sulfur and oxygen atoms called sulfur oxides are air pollutants. The most common type has
one sulfur atom and two oxygen atoms and is called sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide can harm vegetation,
including agricultural crops. Combined with ammonia, it forms very fine particulate matter. Mixed with
moisture in the atmosphere, sulfur oxides can make rain acidic. Acid rain, can harm humans, animals
and vegetation and discolor or damage buildings. Sulfur dioxide forms when substances containing sulfur
are burned such as coal, gas and oil. When burned, the sulfur is released into the air, creating pollution.
Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain

NC State Economist, 07, Daniel Phaneuf,
http://www.ag-con.ncsu.edu/VIRTUAL_LIBRARY/ECONOMIST/mayjune07.pdf
Popular debates on environmental problems often begin by drawing sharp distinctions between polluters and
people who suffer because of pollution. In many instances this takes on an us versus them flavor in which a
large faceless entity (often a corporation) is the unjust them inflicting harm on us. Sometimes this simple
dichotomy is close to accurate, but in most cases the issue of right and wrong is less clear. For example, in
the eastern United States almost all sulfur dioxide pollution comes from a relatively small number of coal-
burning, electricity-generating plants. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the primary cause of acid rain which
destroys forests, poisons lakes and streams, and can have negative impacts on human health. So are the
large electricity plants to blame? In one sense, yes, they produce the emissions. But in another sense, people
who use electricity are to blame - which is just about everyone. So the them in the blame game becomes us:
we both cause the environmental damage (through our use of electricity) and suffer its consequences
(reduced enjoyment of forests, lakes, and streams).
Pollution – Generic Impacts

AIR POLLUTION THREATENS BILLIONS OF PEOPLE:
Roberts 02, Earth Policy Insitute, September 17, 2002 (http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm)
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives
annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer
combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of
billions of people.
Sulfur dioxide kills 1800 a year

Frank Tursi, Staff Writer, 3/6/2001, “Clear the air, environmentalists urge Easley,” Winston-Salem Journal,
http://www.main.nc.us/cnnews/Winston-SalemJournal03-08-01/
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a related issue, ruled yesterday that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
can force North Carolina and 21 other states to cut emissions from coal-fired plants that drift across state
lines to create smog in other states. The reductions demanded by the EPA will come close to meeting the
target for the smog-causing pollutants set by the environmental groups. North Carolina has acquired
something of a reputation as a smoggy place after finishing in the top 10 in a number of national reports on
smog. The number of days in which the air in parts of North Carolina was unhealthy to breathe because of
smog rose steadily from 25 in 1989 to 65 in 1999. Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, can make breathing
difficult for those with asthma and other types of obstructive lung disease. Chronic exposure can also harm
agricultural plants and trees. High ozone levels trigger more than 200,000 asthma attacks in North Carolina
each year, said Hope Taylor, a biochemist who heads the Clean Water Fund of North Carolina. Nitrogen
oxides, which react with sunlight to form ozone, and sulfur dioxide also form tiny particles that can clog
lungs and lead to serious health effects, including death, she said. More than 1,800 people in the state
die prematurely each year because of exposure to the particles, Taylor said.
Pollution – Generic Impacts
Sulfur dioxide is life-threatening

EPA, March 27, 2006, Sulfur Dioxide Fact Sheet,
http://www.epchc.org/Air/Pollutant%20Fact%20Sheets/SO2%20Web.pdf
Short-term exposure to high levels of sulfur dioxide in the air can be life-threatening by causing
breathing difficulties and obstructing airways, especially for people with lung disease. Long-term
exposure to persistent levels of sulfur dioxide can cause chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and respiratory
illness. It can also aggravate existing heart disease. When sulfur dioxide reacts with other chemicals in the
air to form tiny sulfate particles, these particles can gather in the lungs and cause increased respiratory
problems and difficulty breathing. Long-term exposure to sulfate particles can cause respiratory disease
and even premature death. Prolonged industrial exposure to sulfur dioxide may decrease fertility in
men and women. Breathing sulfur dioxide can irritate the nose, throat, and lungs, and cause coughing
and shortness of breath. Short-term exposure to sulfur dioxide can cause stomach pain, menstrual
disorders, watery eyes, inhibition of thyroid function, loss of smell, headache, nausea, vomiting, fever,
convulsions, and dizziness.
Sulfur dioxide raises death rates

Miranda Hitti, WebMD Health, July 31, 2007, Air Pollution May Increase Death Rate, WebMD Medical News,
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=82964
The long-term effects of air pollution may include a higher death rate, a new British study shows. The
study traces death rates among various British electoral wards from the early 1980s through the late 1990s.
When the study began, more than 2 million people lived in those areas. As the years passed, more than
420,000 died of various causes. The researchers included Paul Elliott, FMedSci, of Imperial College
London. They focused on two types of air pollution: black smoke, which comes from burning coal, and
sulfur dioxide. During the study period, air pollution levels dropped. But even so, adults aged 30 and older
living in areas with higher levels of air pollution had higher death rates, especially from respiratory
diseases, according to the study.
Pollution – Solar Solves

Solar energy solves for SO2 in atmosphere
Arkansas Energy Office, 05, http://www.arkansasrenewableenergy.org/solar/solar.html
Solar energy can play a key role in creating a clean, reliable energy future in Arkanas. The benefits are many
and varied. Consumers who use these technologies will benefit directly and immediately. Using solar energy
produces immediate environmental benefits. Electricity is often produced by burning fossil fuels such as
oil, coal, and natural gas. The combustion of these fuels releases a variety of pollutants into the
atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxide (NOx), which
create acid rain and smog. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a significant component of greenhouse
gas emissions. These emissions could significantly alter the world's environment and lead to the global
warming predicted by most atmospheric scientists. The combustion of fossil fuels releases more than 6
billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The United States alone is responsible for 23 percent of
these emissions. Clean energy sources, such as solar energy, can help meet rising energy demands while
reducing pollution and preventing damage to the environment and public health at the same time.
Solar energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels for many reasons: It is clean energy. Even when the
emissions related to solar cell manufacturing are counted, photovoltaic generation produces less than 15
percent of the carbon dioxide from a conventional coal-fired power plant. Using solar energy to replace the
use of traditional fossil fuel energy sources can prevent the release of pollutants into the atmosphere.
Using solar energy to supply a million homes with energy would reduce CO2 emissions by 4.3 million tons
per year, the equivalent of removing 850,000 cars from the road.
Solar energy solves air pollution caused by fossil fuels

DOE 08 (April, “Improving Air Quality with Solar Energy,” www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/42169.pdf)
Many states are seeking additional air pollution control strategies. Zero-emission solar technologies, such
as solar electricity and solar water heating, can help air quality and energy officials in cities, states, and
federal agencies improve air quality, achieve Clean Air Act goals, and reduce pollution control costs for
both industry and taxpayers. Solar technologies provide energy for heating, cooling, and lighting
homes and heating water without any direct emissions; as a result, these technologies can help reduce
air emissions and improve air quality. The use of solar energy systems on buildings displaces electricity
generation from coal, natural gas, and oil power plants, which can reduce air pollutants such as
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury; and greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide.
Solar energy has many advantages: It emits little or no pollution during its use, uses little water, and often
requires no construction of electric wires. Regulatory innovation has created the opportunity to use
solar energy to help meet air quality standards. As solar energy’s costs continue to decline and air quality
standards become more stringent, it may become an even more attractive option for cities and states.
Pollution – Impacts
Power plants key source of air pollution
Power generation from fossil fuels is one of the biggest sources of air pollution in the western states. In 2001,
western power plants emitted an estimated 1,045,000 tons of NOx and 1,283,000 tons of SO2. These
emissions can be associated with significant health problems, including respiratory and cardiopulmonary
disease, cancer, and birth defects. In addition, they can be harmful to forests, water bodies, and fish, and can
decrease visibility in scenic areas.16
Air pollution from power generation kills people and ecosystems

Fossil fuel-fired power plants and, in particular, coal-fired power plants are significant sources of air
pollution. These emissions can be associated with significant health problems, including respiratory and
cardiopulmonary disease, cancer, and birth defects. In addition, they can be harmful to forests, water bodies,
and fish, and can decrease visibility in scenic areas.1 Coal-fired power plants contribute to air pollution more
than natural gas because coal contains elements and compounds other than carbon. For example, coal from
the southern PRB, one of the cleanest coals in the U.S., still consists of 0.31% sulfur and 5.13% of other non-
combustible material, collectively referred to as ash.
Air pollution causes and aggravates disease

American Red cross 2008 (Accessed 7/8/08,
http://www.powerofoxygen.com/AirPollution.html)
Air pollution can aggravate respiratory conditions, cause bodily irritations, sickness and even disease.
Often polluted skies carry particles of materials and solids that eventually settle to the ground. These particles
are in the air we breathe and can be the cause for allergies and other health problems in today’s world. Now
in regards to indoor air pollution, it ranks among the top five environmental threats to public health
problems.
Pollution – Impacts
Best empirical studies show – air pollution leads to disease and death
Merritt, assistant director of development at Cornell College. 2006 (The Cause and Effect of Air Pollution,
Accessed 7/8/08, http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1988/6/88.06.06.x.html#)
One study by Ishikawa et al. provided evidence that air pollution may cause or contribute to
emphysema. A comparison was made of autopsy lung material from residents of two cities, Winnipeg
Manitoba and St. Louis, Missouri. The Canadian city has a relatively low level of air pollution,
whereas the American city characteristicly has high levels of industrial contaminants. Emphysema was
found to be seven times more common in St. Louis for ages 20-49 and twice as common for ages over 60.1
Lets look at a comparison. Smoking was significant but not an isolated factor. A 1960-66 post mortem
examination of lungs of 300 residents of St. Louis, Missouri, and an equal number from Winnipeg, Canada.
The subjects were matched by sex, occupation, socio-economic status, length of residence, smoking habits,
and age at death. The high cost of air pollution is strikingly illustrated in its damaging effects on the human
body. Besides the unpleasantness of irritated eyes and scratchy throats, it presents a threat to the respiratory
tract, contributing to a number of serious diseases. In both the United States and Europe, episodes of high
levels of air pollution were implicated in a large number of deaths.
Pollution – Mercury Internals
Mercury is released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels

DOE 1/18/2006, Mercury Emission Control R&D,
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.html, Accessed
7/8/08,
Trace amounts of mercury can exist in coal and other fossil fuels. When these fuels burn, mercury vapor can
be released to the atmosphere where it may drift for a year or more, spreading with air currents over vast
regions of the globe. In 1995, an estimated 5,500 tons of mercury was emitted globally from both natural and
human sources.
Facilities that burn coal have particularly high levels of mercury emissions
NHDES 2003, Mercury: Sources, Transport, Deposition, and Impacts, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-28.htm, Accessed 7/8/08
Mercury released into the air in state comes from the incineration of waste (municipal solid waste and
medical waste), the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and sewage and sludge incineration. In
waste incineration, many discarded items (e.g., fluorescent lamps, electronic switches, some thermometers,
and older batteries) contain mercury. When these items are burned, mercury is released from the incinerator
stack. The burning of fossil fuels for the production of electricity and steam releases mercury during
the combustion process. Facilities that burn coal have particularly high emissions of mercury. Other
sources such as cars, trucks, and the breakage of fluorescent lamps contribute mercury emissions, but the
extent is not well known.
Pollution – Mercury Impacts

Mercury works its way up the food chain and will harm human health and lead to the
decline of wildlife populations
Environment Canada 2004, Mercury and the Environment, 2/02/04,
http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/EN/bf.cfm, Accessed 7/9/08
The bioaccumulation of methylmercury in natural ecosystems is an environmental concern because it inflicts
increasing levels of harm on species higher up the food chain. This occurs through a process known as
"biomagnification", whereby persistent substances like methylmercury will increase in concentration from
microorganisms, to fish, to fish eating predators like otters and loons, and to humans. Elevated
methylmercury levels may lead to the decline of affected wildlife populations and may affect human health
when people consume significant quantities of fish or other contaminated foods. The most infamous case of
this impact occured in Minimata, Japan, where local residents consumed fish with toxic levels of
methylmercury originating from an industrial sewer discharge, leading to the deaths of more than 1000
people. This type of exposure has now come to be known as Minamata disease.
Mercury is ingested by humans through the consumption of fish and poses a huge threat to
public health and the environment
NHDES 2003, Mercury: Sources, Transport, Deposition, and Impacts, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-28.htm, Accessed 7/8/08
Mercury is a persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic pollutant. When released into the environment, mercury
accumulates in water laid sediments, is ingested by fish, and is passed up the food chain to humans. Mercury
contamination is a significant public health and environmental problem. Despite efforts by federal and state
governments, as well as the private sector, to reduce releases of mercury to the environment, mercury levels
in fish continue to be at levels of concern.
Pollution – Ozone Impacts

Ozone layer is very delicate, even small disruptions can cause huge impacts.
Ross and Zittell 2000, Environmental Systems Directorate/PhD UCLA and Remote Sensing Department/PhD
Cal Berkeley, Rockets and the Ozone Layer, Aerospace Corporation, Observing and Measuring the Atmosphere, Vol.
1 No. 2, Summer 2000, http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html, accessed July 13, 2008
Compared with the mass of all the gas in the stratosphere, the mass of combustion emissions from even
the largest rocket is miniscule, so it's easy to conclude that the effect of all rocket launches on the ozone
layer must be inconsequential. The ozone layer, however, is maintained by a delicate balance of the
production, transport, and destruction of ozone molecules. Relatively small amounts of sufficiently
active chemical compounds can upset this balance and cause important changes in the amount and
distribution of ozone. Rocket engines produce small amounts of such active compounds.

Pollution caused by emissions increase mortality rate
Louis Bergeron 2008, Professor at Stanford University, “First-ever study to link increased mortality specifically
to carbon dioxide emissions,” http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/su-fst010308.php, accessed July 13,
2008
While it has long been known that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change, the new
study details how for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air
pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of
respiratory illness and asthma in the United States, according to the paper by Mark Jacobson, a
professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-
pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas. “This is a cause
and effect relationship, not just a correlation,” said Jacobson of his study, which on Dec. 24 was accepted for
publication in Geophysical Research Letters. “The study is the first specifically to isolate carbon dioxide’s
effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and
meteorological changes due to carbon dioxide itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles
and carcinogens in the air.” Jacobson said that the research has particular implications for California. This
study finds that the effects of carbon dioxide’s warming are most significant where the pollution is
already severe. Given that California is home to six of the 10 U.S. cities with the worst air quality, the state
is likely to bear an increasingly disproportionate burden of death if no new restrictions are placed on carbon
dioxide emissions.
Ozone Depletion Increases Skin Cancer Harms

Conservation Science Institute 2007, Ozone Depletion,
http://conservationinstitute.org/ocean_change/ocean_pollution/ozonedepletion.htm, accessed July 13, 2008
The principle danger of skin cancer is to light-skinned peoples. A 1%decrease in the ozone layer will cause
a estimated 2%increase in UV-B irradiation; it is estimated that this will lead to a 4%increase in basal
carcinomas and 6%increase in squamous-cell carcinomas.[Graedel&Crutzen]. 90% of the skin
carcinomas are attributed to UV-B exposure [Wayne] and the chemical mechanism by which it causes
skin cancer has been identified [Tevini]. The above named carcinomas are relatively easy to treat, if
detected in time, and are rarely fatal. But the much more dangerous malignant melanoma is not as well
understood. There appears to be a correlation between brief, high intensity exposures to UV and
eventual appearance (as long as 10-20yrs!) of melanoma. Twice as many deaths due to melanomas are
seen in the southern states of Texas and Florida, as in the northern states of Wisconsin and Montana,
but there could be many other factors involved. One undisputed effect of long-term sun exposure is the
premature aging of the skin due to both UV-A, UV-B and UV-C. Even careful tanning kills skin cells,
damages DNA and causes permanent changes in skin connective tissue which leads to wrinkle formation in
later life. There is no such thing as a safe tan.

Ozone depletion causes genetic damage
DNA absorbs UV-B light and the absorbed energy can break bonds in the DNA. Most of the DNA
breakages are repaired by proteins present in the cells nucleus but unrepaired genetic damage of the DNA
can lead to skin cancers. In fact one method that scientists use to analyze amounts of 'genetically-damaging
UV-B is to expose samples of DNA to the light and then count the number of breaks in the DNA. For
example J.Regan's work at the Florida Institute of Technology used human DNA to find that genetically
significant doses of solar radiation could penetrate as far as 9 feet into non-turbulent ocean water.
Ozone depletion causes eye damage

“Possible eye damage can result from high doses of UV light, particularly to the cornea which is a
good absorber of UV light. High doses of UV light can causes a temporary clouding of the cornea,
called 'snow-blindness', and chronic doses has been tentatively linked to the formation of cataracts.
Higher incidences of cataracts are found at high elevations, Tibet and Bolivia; and higher incidences
are seen at lower latitudes (approaching the equator).
Ozone depletion causes damage to marine life

The penetration of increased amounts of UV-B light has caused great concern over the health of marine
plankton that densely populate the top 2 meters of ocean water. The natural protective-response of most
chlorophyll containing cells to increased light-radiation is to produce more light-absorbing pigments
but this protective response is not triggered by UV-B light. Another possible response of plankton is to
sink deeper into the water but this reduces the amount of visible light they need for photosynthesis,
and thereby reduces their growth and reproduction rate. In other words, the amount of food and
oxygen produced by plankton could be reduced by UV exposure without killing individual organisms.
There are several other considerations: Ultraviolet levels are over 1,000 times higher at the equator than at
the polar regions so it is presumed that marine life at the equator is much better adapted to the higher
environmental UV light than organisms in the polar regions. The current concern of marine biologists is
mostly over the more sensitive Antarctic phytoplankton which normally would receive very low doses of UV.
Only one large-scale field survey of Antarctic phytoplankton has been carried out so far [Smith et.al
_Science_1992] ; they found a 6-12% drop in phytoplankton productivity once their ship entered the area of
the spring-time ozone hole. Since the hole only lasts from 10-12 weeks this translates into a 2-4%loss overall,
a measurable but not yet catastrophic loss. Both plants and phytoplankton vary widely in their sensitivity to
UV-B. When over 200 agricultural plants were tested, more than half showed sensitivity to UV-B light.
Other plants showed negligible effects or even a small increase in vigor. Even within a species there were
marked differences; for example one variety of soybean showed a 16% decrease in growth while
another variety of the same soybean showed no effect [R.Parson]. An increase in UV-B could cause a shift
in population rather than a large die-off of plants . An increase in UV-B will cause increased amounts of
Ozone to be produced at lower levels in the atmosphere. While some have hailed the protection offered by
this 'pollution-shield' many plants have shown themselves to be very sensitive to photochemical smog.
Add-on – Natural Gas Bad

The United States is dependent on foreign oil
Klare 2006 (Michael T. Klare, January 4, 2006 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060123/klare)
In the high-stakes arena of energy geopolitics, natural gas is rapidly emerging as the next big prize.
What oil was to the twentieth century, natural gas will be to the twenty-first. Consider these recent
developments: § Item. As we went to press, Russia was restoring the flow of natural gas to Western and Central Europe after state-
controlled Gazprom curtailed deliveries on January 1 in a bid to force Ukraine to pay the market price for gas previously supplied at
subsidized rates. Although emphasizing the price issue, Russian officials apparently intended to constrict Ukraine's energy supplies as a
way of punishing that country's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, architect of the Orange Revolution, for his overtures to
NATO and the EU. Gazprom's pipelines to Western Europe (which buys a quarter of its gas from Russia) pass through Ukraine so it
could siphon off some of the diminished supply, leaving very little for other customers and provoking fears of an energy crisis at the
onset of winter. § Item. A dispute between China and Japan over the ownership of an undersea gas field in an area of the East China Sea
claimed by both countries has grown increasingly inflammatory, with China sending warships into the area and Japan threatening "bold
action" if the Chinese begin pumping gas from the field. The conflict has soured relations between Beijing and Tokyo and provoked a
strong nationalistic response from the populations of both countries. The huge anti-Japanese demonstrations in Shanghai and other
Chinese cities last April were prompted, in part, by Tokyo's announcement that it would permit drilling in the area by Japanese firms. A
peaceful resolution of the dispute does not appear imminent. § Item. Ever since India announced plans more than a year ago to build a
natural gas pipeline from fields in Iran to its own territory via Pakistan, the Bush Administration has been applying pressure on New
Delhi to cancel the project, claiming it will undermine US attempts to isolate Tehran and curb its nuclear efforts. "We have
communicated to the Indian government our concerns about the gas pipeline cooperation between Iran and India," Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice announced after meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh on March 16. But the Indians have continued
talks with Islamabad and Tehran over the pipeline plan. The United States is becoming increasingly dependent on
natural gas. This country now relies on natural gas for approximately one-fourth of its total energy
supply, more than from any source except oil. As a result, the economy has become more and more
vulnerable to fluctuations in gas supply and pricing--a vulnerability that should be especially evident
this winter as gas prices hit record levels, with painful effects on the poor. Natural gas provides
approximately 14 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in this country, 45 percent of home
heating fuel and 31 percent of the energy and petrochemicals consumed by agriculture and industry.
Gas is also used as a feedstock for the manufacture of hydrogen, a promising new entrant in the race to
develop alternative fuels. The United States currently relies on North American supplies for most of its gas,
but with those reserves being depleted at a rapid pace and few untapped fields available for exploitation, need
for gas from other regions is growing and energy plants seek more gas from foreign suppliers like Qatar,
Nigeria and Russia. As with oil, America could become heavily dependent on foreign suppliers for essential
energy needs, a situation fraught with danger for national security. Many of America's key allies, including
the NATO powers and Japan, are dependent on imports. As the global output of petroleum begins to contract
in the decades ahead, industrialized nations will increasingly rely on natural gas. According to the Energy
Department, the world's known gas reserves stood at 6,076 trillion cubic feet in 2004. In terms of energy
output, this is equivalent to approximately 1,094 billion barrels of oil, or approximately 92 percent of known
petroleum reserves. But because the world is consuming a smaller proportion each year of the remaining gas
supply than it is of the remaining oil supply (1.5 percent as compared with 2.5 percent), gas should remain
relatively abundant even after the supply of petroleum begins to contract. Considerable untouched gas is also
believed to reside in remote "stranded" fields that could someday be added to the tally of proven reserves,
further enhancing the fuel's role in the global energy equation.

Rising gas demand will spur gas price crisis
It is clear that power generation is competing for an increasing share of North America’s natural gas
supply. Coupled with a pipeline infrastructure that is old and out of capacity, a tug-of-war between
power generation and traditional gas users is unavoidable. We predict that this will result in greater
market volatility and the potential for upwardly spiraling gas prices. It appears that the greatest price
volatility will not come from increasing wellhead prices, but from high transportation costs on pipelines.
However, transportation costs are a point where a regulatory commission could exact control in an effort to
mitigate gas price volatility. Changes in the way the natural gas market operates, and how fast and efficiently
market participants embrace such changes, will determine the level of price and attendant volatility that
residential customers could see on their energy bills in the future. An important factor in the California
energy crisis was the limit on natural gas pipeline capacity and how that limit allowed natural gas
prices to spiral out of control.

Solar energy holds the key to U.S. energy
Prometheus Institute, 2006 (US Solar Energy: Year in Review, p. 2,
http://www.seia.org/Year_in_Solar_2006.pdf)
Solar can be used to decrease our overdependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. According
to the Energy Information Agency, two-thirds of the petroleum and 20 percent of the natural gas consumed in
the US is imported from other countries, and US production of both is dropping while consumption continues
to rise. With many of the remaining global reserves of these vital fuels located in distant and unstable
regions around the world, the US needs to ensure that domestic energy alternatives like solar are
developed.
Solar technology will replace natural gas and reduces foreign oil dependence.
Freeman 07 ---S. David Freeman, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority, 2007, Winning our Energy
Independence: an energy insider shows how, p. 51 (HARVEN2725)
Solar-heated water could replace a sizeable-volume of natural gas used for heating water. Why the need
to replace natural gas? The natural gas saved by solar hot water heaters could then be used as a
substitute for petroleum in transportation in the coming decade, especially in trucks, to reduce
pollution as well as our dependence on imported oil. Shifting natural gas from making hot water and
being used as boiler fuel in power plants could be a larger step on our path toward the full transition to
100 percent renewable transportation fuels.
Solar Energy will end dependence on fossil fuels

DOE & NREL 2008 (Department of Energy and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, April 1,
“Environmental Benefits of Solar Energy,” http://www.aessolarenergy.com/environmental_benefits.htm)
This is a simple, yet important effect of using Solar Energy. As more and more individuals,
corporations, and government use alternative energies such as solar, we conserve fossil fuels and other
natural resources that are quickly diminishing.
Solar energy solves harms of natural gas

Svejkovsky; 2008; NCAT program specialist; http://www.montanagreenpower.com/solar/index.html
The combustion of fossil fuels releases more than 6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each
year. The United States alone is responsible for 23 percent of these emissions. Clean energy sources,
such as solar energy, can help meet rising energy demands while reducing pollution and preventing
damage to the environment and public health at the same time.

Locally-based CSP power plants reduce both local and national demand for gas, resulting
in lower prices which pass savings on statewide to consumers through spillover effects—
California model proves
The deployment of non-fossil fueled power generation can decrease or slow the growth in demand for
fossil fuels if power generated by fossil fueled plants is off-set by renewable energy generators. Several
recent studies suggest that there could be a price decrease of between one and four percent for each 1
percent decline in demand. Therefore, based on a 1 percent reduction in gas price for a 1 percent
reduction in nationwide gas usage, the deployment of 4,000 MW of CSP in California could result in a
total reduction of approximately $60 million per year for natural gas expenditures in California,
assuming a natural gas price of $6.40 per MMBtu. If the natural gas price reduction were to be in the range of
4 percent for each 1 percent reduction in nationwide gas usage, the savings in gas cost to California could be
four times higher. These savings in California are based on average savings for US consumers. However,
savings per MMBtu could be higher in California than the national average. Dr. Ryan Wiser, in private
communication, wrote, “Though reductions in California natural gas demand will have national price
impacts that spill over to the state, the impact on California natural gas prices may be somewhat higher than
the national impact if the natural gas transportation infrastructure serving California is constrained.”

U.S. natural gas supplies are too vulnerable
Kunzemann, 2008 (Thilo, Safety Security : Energy Security article for Allianz, May 27, 2008, p. 2,
http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/downloads/energy_security_usa.pdf)
While the energy security debate in Europe is focused on Russian gas, the debate in the U.S. is locked on
foreign oil, despite the fact that more than half of all U.S. citizens rely on natural gas for heating. For
decades the U.S. has enjoyed easy access to gas in U.S. and Canadian fields. This blessing, however, is
seen as a problem by experts like Didier Houssin from the International Energy Agency, because it creates
dependence. If terrorists took out a key pipeline, bringing in alternative supplies from outside North
America would be difficult and expensive.
( ) Terrorists could acquire and weaponize LNG

Parfomak 03, Specialist in Science and Technology Resources, Science, and Industry Division, 2003 (Paul W.,
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Infrastructure Security: Background and Issues for Congress, p.2)
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hazardous fuel frequently shipped in massive tankers from overseas to
U.S. ports. LNG is also manufactured domestically and is often stored near population centers.
Because LNG infrastructure is highly visible and easily identified, it can be vulnerable to terrorist
attack. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. LNG industry and federal agencies have put new measures in
place to protect LNG infrastructure and respond to the possibility of terrorism. Nonetheless, public concerns
about LNG risks continue to raise questions about LNG security. While LNG has historically made up a
small part of U.S. natural gas supplies, rising gas prices and the possibility of domestic shortages are sharply
increasing LNG demand. Faced with this growth in demand and public concerns, Congress is examining the
adequacy of federal LNG security initiatives.
( ) Offshore LNG terminals hurt local ecosystems

Parfomak 03, Specialist in Science and Technology Resources, Science, and Industry Division, 2003 (Paul
W., Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Infrastructure Security: Background and Issues for Congress, p. 9-10)
Several proposed LNG terminals, such as the Energy Bridge project, would be located entirely offshore,
connected to land only by underwater pipelines. These offshore terminal designs seek to avoid community
opposition and permitting obstacles which have delayed or prevented the construction of new on-shore
LNG terminal facilities. Because offshore terminals would be located far from land, they also would present
fewer security risks than land-based LNG terminals. Offshore terminals do present environmental
concerns, however, since they would use seawater for regasification. Such a process would cool the
waters in the vicinity of the terminal with potential impacts on the local ecosystem due to the lower
water temperatures. No offshore LNG terminals have been built yet, so they may also need to overcome
technical challenges associated with their floating designs.

LNG carries substantial physical risks
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Infrastructure Security: Background and Issues for Congress, p.11-12)
Natural gas is combustible, so an uncontrolled release of LNG poses a serious hazard of explosion or
fire. LNG also poses hazards because it is so cold. Experts have identified several potentially
catastrophic events that could arise from an LNG release. The likelihood and severity of these events
have been the subject of considerable research and testing. While open questions remain about the impacts of
specific hazards in an actual accident, there appears to be consensus as to what are the greatest LNG hazards.
If LNG spills near an ignition source, the evaporating gas in a combustible gas-air concentration will
burn above the LNG pool. The resulting “pool fire” would spread as the LNG pool expanded away from
its source and continued evaporating. Such pool fires are intense, burning far more hotly and rapidly
than oil or gasoline fires. They cannot be extinguished–all the LNG must be consumed before they go
out. Because LNG pool fires are so hot, their thermal radiation may injure people and damage
property a considerable distance from the fire itself. Many experts agree that a pool fire, especially on
water due to thermal effects, is the most serious LNG hazard. If LNG spills but does not immediately
ignite, the evaporating natural gas will form a vapor cloud that may drift some distance from the spill
site. If the cloud subsequently encounters an ignition source, those portions of the cloud with a
combustible gas-air concentration will burn. Because only a fraction of such a cloud would have a
combustible gas-air concentration, the cloud would not likely explode all at once, but the fire could still
cause considerable damage. An LNG vapor cloud fire would gradually burn its way back to the LNG spill
where the vapors originated and would continue to burn as a pool fire.40 If an LNG tank failed due to a
collision or terror attack, experts believe the failure event itself would likely ignite the LNG pool before a
large vapor cloud could form.41 Consequently, they conclude that large vapor cloud fires are less likely than
instantaneous pool fires. If LNG spills on water, it could theoretically heat up and regasify almost
instantly in a “flameless explosion” (also called a “rapid phase transition”).
LNG is a toxic hazard to humans and environments

In addition to these catastrophic hazards, an LNG spill poses hazards on a smaller scale. An LNG
vapor cloud is not toxic, but could cause asphyxiation by displacing breathable air. Such clouds rise in air
as they warm, however, diminishing the threat to people on the ground. Alternatively, extremely cold LNG
could injure people or damage equipment through direct contact. The extent of such contact would
likely be limited, however, as a major spill would likely result in a more serious fire. The environmental
damage associated with an LNG spill would be confined to fire and freezing impacts near the spill since
LNG dissipates completely and leaves no residue (as crude oil does).
LNG technology is easily accessible by terrorists

LNG tankers and land-based facilities are vulnerable to terrorism. Tankers may be physically attacked
in a variety of ways to destroy their cargo–or commandeered for use as weapons against coastal
targets. Land-based LNG facilities may also be physically attacked with explosives or through other
means. Alternatively, computer control systems may be “cyber-attacked,” or both physical and cyber attack
may happen at the same time. Some LNG facilities may also be indirectly disrupted by other types of
terror strikes, such as attacks on regional electricity grids or communications networks, which could in
turn affect dependent LNG control and safety systems. Since LNG is fuel for power plants, heating,
military bases, and other uses, disruption of LNG shipping or storage poses additional “downstream” risks,
especially in more dependent regions like New England.
Add-on – Space
Solar promotes space exploration
National Security Space Office; 10/10/07; Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic
Security; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly supports the articulated goals of the U.S.
National Space Policy and Vision for Space Exploration which seeks to promote international
and commercial participation in exploration that furthers U.S. scientific, security, and economic
interests, and extends human presence across the solar system. No other opportunity so clearly
offers a path to realize the Vision as articulated by Dr. Marburger, Science Advisor to the
President: “As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate
the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush
and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, ‘The
fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests
through a robust space exploration program.’ So at least for now the question has been decided in
the affirmative.” No other opportunity is likely to tap a multi‐trillion dollar market that could
provide an engine to emplace infrastructure that could truly extend human presence across the solar
system and enable the use of lunar and other space resources as called for in the Vision.
Ten to the thirty-second power human lives perish each second we delay space colonization.
Bostrum, Professor of Philosophy at Yale, 2003 (Is Cosmology Relevant to Transhumanism?)
Suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms; unused energy is being flushed down black holes; our great common endowment of
negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale, as I write these words. These are resources that an advanced
civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentient beings living worthwhile lives. The rate of this loss boggles the
mind. One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of
potential human lives in our own galactic supercluster is at least ~10^46 per century of delayed colonization
(Cirkovic 2002) . This estimate assumes that all the lost entropy could have been used for productive purposes, although no currently
known technological mechanisms are even remotely capable of doing that. Since the estimate is meant to be a lower bound, this
radically unconservative assumption is undesirable. We can, however, get a lower bound more straightforwardly by simply counting the
number or stars in our galactic supercluster and multiplying this number with the amount of computing power that the resources of each
star could be used to generate using technologies for whose feasibility a strong case has already been made. We can then divide this total
with the estimated amount of computing power needed to simulate one human life. As a rough approximation, letÕs say the Virgo
Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate of the computing power extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized
computational structure, using advanced molecular nanotechnology (Drexler 1992) , is 10^42 operations per second (Bradbury 2000) . A
typical estimate of the human brainÕs processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second (Bostrom 1998; Kurzweil 1999) or less
(Moravec 1999). Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient detail to enable the
simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences (Bostrom 2001) . Given these estimates,
it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our
local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second.
Add-on – Space
Space colonization is key to economic growth
Wasser; ’08; The Space Settlement Initiative; journalist for ABS and CBS;
http://spacesettlement.org/
Space development has almost stopped, primarily because no one has a sufficient reason to spend the
billions of dollars needed to develop safe, reliable, affordable transport between the Earth and the Moon.
Neither Congress nor the taxpayers wants the government stuck with that expense. Private venture capital
will support such expensive and risky research and development ONLY if success could mean a multi-
billion dollar profit. Today, there is no profit potential in developing space transport, but we have the power
to change that. Lunar and Martian real estate is currently worthless. But that real estate will acquire
enormous value after there is a settlement, regular commercial access, and a system of space property
rights. Lunar or Martian property ownership could then be bought and sold back on earth, raising
billions of dollars. This is a plan to be sure that money is used as an incentive and reward for those who
invest in a way to get there and stay there.
Space solves resource wars

The Toronto Star, 06 (If we do wreck the world, will space stations take us, 7/9/08, L/N)
And, he adds, creating space colonies is not without its benefits. The asteroids surrounding Earth are
chock full of precious ores, comets make for a delicious source of water and solar power can make up
the bulk of the energy needs, he says. The surrounding solar system has so many resources and so
much space that Globus believes that colonization would put an end to resource-based wars. "Those
classes of wars would die out. The whole idea of blood for oil is monumentally silly when you have the
resources of the solar system," he says.
Add-on – Warming
Solar Power Solves for Global Warming
Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure
would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the
fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S.
trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies
are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by
1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in
hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent
below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global warming.
Solving warming in the U.S. spills over across the globe

VICTOR 1999, Council on Foreign Relations, 1999 (David G., Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum,
Fall) (HARVEN1915)
One partial solution is based on the fact that the liberal nations, which are most likely to comply with
demanding commitments, are also the major centers of technological innovation. Carbon-intensive
[-149] energy is the most important source of global warming. Over a period of five decades and beyond -
the time-scale that is most relevant for global warming - technological change can eliminate emissions of
greenhouse gases, probably at remarkably low cost because that time scale is longer than the turnover of
capital stock. A regime that coordinates efforts to promote development and deployment of new energy
technologies could focus on these liberal nations, and the resulting new technologies could spread
worldwide from this innovative core through the normal operation of private markets. Some rules on
quantities and prices would also be needed to promote diffusion, but they would be complements rather than
central elements of international collective action on global warming and less needy of strong enforcement.
Such a regime is not as elegant as coordinating world prices or quantities - which, in principle, would be
economically most efficient - but it has an attribute that pure price and quantity approaches probably lack: it
could work.
Solar Energy will solve warming by becoming cheaper than coal

Poston 07; December 2007; a freelance writer who has been featured in many credible publications;
http://www.freeaccess.com.au/Structure:%20/2007/12/29/technological-advances-make-solar-power-cheaper-than-
coal/
In recent years, people have argued against solar energy as a main source of power because of the
expense of setting it up and maintaining it. Thanks to a recent breakthrough by the Nanosolar
company, solar power may soon be cheaper than our current number one source of energy, coal.
What’s the cost savings? A huge drop from $3 USD per watt to less than 30 cents per watt. How has
Nanosolar accomplished the increased efficiency? The secret is in their coating. Solar power works off of
solar cells, grouped together to harness and store the energy of the sun. Their new coating is the thinnest ever,
and yet still more efficient than the bulkier current solar solutions out there. The company says the coating is
thinner than a coat of paint. Nanosolar did not invent the full technology behind the new solar cells. What
they did was invent the most cost efficient way of manufacturing the solar cells and coating. This is essential
in keeping the cost down and making solar energy a viable alternative finally. If Nanosolar has its way, they
will have a factory in California for the solar cells and a factory in Germany for the panels. Each of these
factories will be among the largest in the world. The sheer volume that would be available in each location
would be key in cost effective manufacture of the future energy source of solar cells. Nanosolar is so
confident it will be successful that it offers a 25 year warranty on its products.
Add-on – Oil Dependency

Oil dependency undermines national security
Foxx 08, NC Senator, 2008 (Virginia, The Conservative Voice, July 1, 2008,
http://conservativevoice2008.blogspot.com/2008/07/energy-independence-congresswoman-
foxx.html, accessed july 8, 2008)
America's discussion of energy policy is dominated by sky-high gas prices, and rightly so. But in this
discussion the national security implications of high energy costs often go unmentioned. Exploding gas
prices not only take an ever-larger bite out of average American's budgets, but also pose a threat to our
nation's security in a global energy marketplace. The time has come for an American declaration of
energy independence. Last year alone the U.S. increased our imports of oil from the OPEC cartel by
12.7 percent for a total of nearly 2 billion barrels of oil—the highest amount in 30 years. That means
more than a quarter of our oil consumption comes from an oil cartel composed of countries that vary
from oppressive regimes to downright sworn enemies of our country. To make matters worse, in addition
to the billions of barrels we buy from OPEC nations, we also import hundreds of millions of barrels from
non-OPEC countries. All told we imported more than 3.6 billion barrels of crude oil in 2007. That's about
two out of every three barrels of crude oil we use. Imported oil puts America's energy supply at the
mercy of unsavory regimes and can even funnel cash into the hands of state sponsors of terrorism.
These are direct threats to our national security. Energy independence should be a cornerstone of our
long-term economic stability and national security. But our oil supply is susceptible to the tinkering of
unscrupulous global leaders—from the anti-American regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to authoritarian
governments in the Middle East. The best strategy to counter our dependence on foreign oil is to produce oil
here in America and reduce our oil consumption by making the transition to alternative sources of energy.
Solar energy reduces fossil fuel dependence

McLamb, 08, President at Ecology Communications, Inc (Eric, Fossils Fuels vs. Renewable Energy Resources:
Energy's Future Today, 7/7/08, http://www.ecology.com/features/fossilvsrenewable/fossilvsrenewable.html
Sun, wind and water are perfect energy sources...depending on where you are. They are non-polluting,
renewable and efficient. They are simple: all you need is sunlight, running water and/or wind. Not only do
the use of renewable energy sources help reduce global carbon dioxide emissions, but they also add
some much-needed flexibility to the energy resource mix by decreasing our dependence on limited
reserves of fossil fuels. Essentially, these renewable energy sources create their own energy. The object is to
capture and harness their mechanical power and convert it to electricity in the most effective and productive
manner possible. There's more than enough renewable energy sources to supply all of the world's
energy needs forever; however, the challenge is to develop the capability to effectively and economically
capture, store and use the energy when needed. Take solar energy for example. The ultimate source of
energy is the sun. It’s energy is found in all things, including fossil fuels. Plants depend on the sun to
make food, animals eat the plants, and both ended up becoming the key ingredients for fossil fuels. Without
the sun, nothing on this planet would exist. The sun also provides enough energy that can be stored for use
long after the sun sets and even during extended cloudy periods. But making it available is much easier said
than done. It would be cost prohibitive to make solar energy mainstream for major world consumption in the
near future. The technology is pretty much ready for many business and consumer applications, but it
would be way too expensive to replace the current energy infrastructure used for fossil fuel energy. Still,
according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, solar power could provide energy for more
than one billion people by 2020 and 26% percent of global energy needs by 2040.
Solar Energy can replace fossil fuel

Europe Region; 2007; A report on solar energy industry in Europe;
http://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Business%20Reports/A%20Report%20on%20S
olar%20Energy%20Industry%20in%20Europe.htm
If fossil fuel is to be replaced with renewable energy sources, the cost of generating renewable energy
should be comparable with that of generating conventional power. Hence, Europe is developing
technologies for producing low cost solar cells.
Add-on – Oil Dependency

( ) Oil import dependence severely undermines both national and global security
Deutch, 2007 (John, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, March 22, 2007, p. 3-4)
Oil import dependence has a serious national security cost. Most fundamentally, dependence on oil
imports limits the leverage of the United States and its allies, necessary to achieve its foreign policy
objectives. Oil revenues enable producer countries to pursue policies that are not in the interest of the
United States. I cite several examples: 1) Iran. The possibility that Iran might interrupt the 2.5 million
barrels of oil per day (of its 4.0 million barrels per day production) that it exports must be taken into
account when considering sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons activities or for its intervention in
the internal affairs of Iraq. 2) Russia has made clear its intention to use its considerable oil and gas
reserves to promote its global interests. The recent actions of Russia to threaten interruption of gas supplies
to Eastern European states must give Europe pause, because of its dependence on natural gas imports from
Russia. 3) Venezuela’s oil revenues allow it to pursue domestic and foreign policies that are not in the
democratic tradition of that country and which are anti-American.
AT: States CP – No Jurisdiction

States have no control over federal lands, Indian Reservations prove
Cornell University Law School 2000, (“Public Lands: Federal and State Powers Thereover,”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag15_user.html, accessed on July 8, 2008)
No appropriation of public lands may be made for any purpose except by authority of Congress.295 However, the long–continued practice of
withdrawing land from the public domain by Executive Orders for the purpose of creating Indian reservations has raised an implied delegation of
authority from Congress to take such action.296 The comprehensive authority of Congress over public lands includes
the power to prescribe the times, conditions, and mode of transfer thereof and to designate the persons
to whom the transfer shall be made,297 to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States,298 to
determine the validity of grants which antedate the government’s acquisition of the property,299 to exempt lands acquired under the homestead
laws from previously contracted debts,300 to withdraw land from settlement and to prohibit grazing thereon,301 to
prevent unlawful occupation of public property and to declare what are nuisances, as affecting such
property, and provide for their abatement,302 and to prohibit the introduction of liquor on lands
purchased and used for an Indian colony.303 Congress may limit the disposition of the public domain to a manner consistent
with its views of public policy. A restriction inserted in a grant of public lands to a municipality which prohibited the grantee from selling or
leasing to a private corporation the right to sell or sublet water or electric energy supplied by the facilities constructed on such land was held
valid.304 Unanimously upholding a federal law to protect wild–roaming horses and burros on federal lands, the Court restated the applicable
principles governing Congress’ power under this clause. It empowers Congress to act as both proprietor and legislature over the public domain;
Congress has complete power to make those “needful rules” which in its discretion it determines are necessary. When Congress acts
with respect to those lands covered by the clause, its legislation overrides conflicting state laws.305 Absent
action by Congress, however, States may in some instances exercise some jurisdiction over activities on federal lands.306 No State can tax
public lands of the United States within its borders,307 nor can state legislation interfere with the
power of Congress under this clause or embarrass its exercise.308 Thus, by virtue of a Treaty of 1868,
according self–government to Navajos living on an Indian Reservation in Arizona, the tribal court,
rather than the courts of that State, had jurisdiction over a suit for a debt[p.890]owed by an Indian resident thereof
to a non–Indian conducting a store on the Reservation under federal license.309 The question whether title to land which has once been the
property of the United States has passed from it must be resolved by the laws of the United States; after title has passed, “that property, like all
other property in the state, is subject to state legislation, so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested
according to the laws of the United States.”310 In construing a conveyance by the United States of land within a State, the settled and reasonable
rule of construction of the State affords a guide in determining what impliedly passes to the grantee as an incident to land expressly granted.311
But a state statute enacted subsequently to a federal grant cannot operate to vest in the State rights which either remained in the United States or
passed to its grantee.312 Territories: Powers of Congress Thereover In the territories, Congress has the entire dominion and
sovereignty, national and local, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which a state
legislature might act.313 It may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a
legislature elected by the citizens thereof,314 which will then be invested with all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the
United States and acts of Congress.315 In 1886, Congress prohibited the enactment by territorial legislatures of local or special laws on
enumerated subjects.316 The constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have been made a part of the United
States by congressional action317 but not in unincorporated territories.318 Congress may establish, or may authorize the territorial legislature to
create, legislative courts whose jurisdiction is derived from statutes enacted pursuant to this section other than from Article III.319 Such courts
may exercise admiralty jurisdiction despite the fact that such jurisdiction may be exercised in the States only by constitutional courts.320
Federal government overrides State laws

USA Congress 1979 (“Management of fuel and nonfuel minerals in Federal land: current status,” April, p.252,
http://books.google.com/books?id=msnOQ_VoID8C&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=state+jurisdiction+federal+lands
+bad&source=web&ots=EAB1l1ofOw&sig=lF729YHdFQhxTi5zzN4FS4zmU0k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&r
esnum=8&ct=result#PPA252,M1, accessed on July 8, 2008)
Congress has complete power over Federal land under the Property Clause of the Constitution, which
states: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….” “The Constitution also gives
Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its specifically enumerated powers.” And
provides that “the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme Law of the Land;… any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
contrary not withstanding. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that these constitutional provisions give the Congress plenary authority over Federal
land in any State, so that any law passed by Congress respecting the use, disposal, or protection of the Federal
land will override or preempt and conflicting State law.”
AT: States CP – No Jurisdiction

Federal government has power over all public land, states has no authority over it
Howell 2005, Speaker of Virginia House of Delegates (Bill, “Federal Acquisition of Land Within States,”
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/44.html, accessed on July 9, 2008)
When a State offers no comment with respect to a particular purchase, it is assumed by the court that the state consented to the purchase. In other
words, it is necessary for our elected representatives to be proactive and challenge the purchase or they give up the state’s sovereignty. All
lands purchased by the Federal government, for whatever reason, are considered to be “public lands.” [Ref.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Sec. 103(e)] The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Kleppe v. New Mexico,
426 U.S. 529, (1976) that Congress exercises “complete” jurisdiction over public lands. Thus, every
acre purchased by the Federal government is an acre removed from sovereign state legislative
jurisdiction. With state jurisdiction stripped from federally purchased land, they no longer fall under
state or local legislative jurisdiction or regulation and we, the people, loose the ability to hold our locally elected
representatives accountable. Also, local economic conditions don’t have any bearing on the development or production as dictated by a free
market. With state jurisdiction stripped from federally purchased property, the Federal government may exercise police power on these lands as
well as adjacent land, “notwithstanding such action may involve an entry upon the lands of a private individual,” Camfield v. U.S., 167 U.S. 518
(1897). A person selling his property to the Federal government exposes his neighbors to the police power of the United States thus expanding the
already vast reach of Federal police power within the State. While this is a matter of sufficient concern in itself, it must also be noted that this
police power is not susceptible to local political control. Therefore, the peoples right to republican governance, as is guaranteed under Article IV,
section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, is further diminished by each Federal purchase of private or State owned land.
Federal government controls state land

Lohaus 1996, Director of NRC's Office of State and Tribal Programs (OSTP) (Paul H., “Transmittal of State
Agreements Program Information,” February 16, http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/asletters/other/sp96022.pdf, accessed on
July 9, 2008)
An area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction is an area over which the Federal government exercises legal
control without interference from the jurisdiction and administration of State law. The creation of an
area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction occurs as a result of State consent at the time the Federal
government acquires control over the land. The determination of whether a Federal enclave is an area of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction must be made on a case-by-case basis since the status of such land is subject to change. The most efficient way to make
determinations is to contact the Federal agency responsible for exercising Federal control over the
enclave.
AT: States CP – Indigenous ppl Turn

State’s presence in federal lands threaten indigenous sovereignty
Scheurell 1995, Associate Professor of Social Work, School of Social Welfare, University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee (Robert, “Social Welfare with Indigenous Peoples,” p.77
http://books.google.com/books?id=B7w9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=%22state+jurisdiction%22+indig
enous+-aboriginal+-aboriginal+
australia&source=web&ots=UwKrS7468C&sig=CGlg9vbZc4r4C0liHXT7IHnnrTY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result
&resnum=2&ct=result, accessed on July 9, 2008)
Whether or not a reservation falls under State jurisdiction depends in large part upon whether the indigenous government successfully resisted
federal pressures to transfer jurisdiction. In general, indigenous leaders prefer to remain under federal rather than
State auspices because the treaties which protect their rights are with the federal government. States
are under no obligation to honour these treaties. Given that indigenous people represent only a small minority of the
electorate in any given State, their needs are not likely to be considered high among the State’s appropriation
priorities. In those locations where there is overlapping jurisdiction, there tends to be a plethora of rules and regulations, some of
which are contradictory to each other ad to indigenous people’s needs, and jurisdictional disputes dangerously
jeopardize the sovereignty of indigenous governments. Nevertheless, within those ‘open’ reservations in which States do
have jurisdictional responsibilities, the availability of State resources can provide a significant augmentation to federally supported programmes.
In Minnesota, for example, the State subsidizes mental health services within Indian communities, channels some of the housing programme
resources for low-income people to the indigenous governments to assure that indigenous people are served, co-operates in the implementation of
the ‘Indian Child Welfare Act’, co-operates in the regulation of hunting and fishing rights, and funds a large, indigenously administered post-
secondary scholarship programme. Also, in Minnesota, most but not all the reservations are under State criminal jurisdiction.
States hurt Native American sovereignty on federal lands, tribes eliminated

Roleff 2008, Greenhaven Press Author (Tamara L., “Current Controversies: Native American Rights:
Introduction,” August, http://www.enotes.com/native-american-article/44414, accessed on July 9, 2008)
During the Great Depression, Congress passed legislation intended to restore some sovereignty to Indian tribes: the Indian Reorganization Act
(IRA) of 1934. The purpose of the new law was to “rehabilitate the Indian’s economic life and to give him a chance to develop the initiative
destroyed by a century of oppression and paternalism.” The IRA prohibited the further breakdown of reservations, added land to existing
reservations, and encouraged tribes to adopt their own constitutions and become self-governing. Federal Indian policy shifted
course again in 1953 under a congressional resolution known as “termination.” The new policy was an
attempt to assimilate Native Americans into white society and to encourage self-sufficiency by
terminating federal benefits to the tribes and by abolishing the reservations. Under this policy, federal
benefits for more than one hundred tribes were eliminated. Many reservations were broken up, tribal
assets were distributed among the tribes’ members, and tribal governments were dissolved. Moreover,
for the first time Congress gave some state governments full jurisdiction over criminal offenses and
partial jurisdiction over civil matters that occurred on the reservations. Up until then, the states had never had any
jurisdiction over Native Americans, their land, or their property.
Federal government conflicts with tribal sovereignty, subject to Congress jurisdiction

Golan 2004, American Enterprise Online Journalist (Jan, “The Festering Problem of Indian "Sovereignty,”
September, http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18147/article_detail.asp, accessed on July 9, 2008)
Another outspoken Congressman on the issue is Republican Ernest Istook of Oklahoma. "We have certainly reached a
point where something needs to be done," he says. "But that's not the same as the point where people recognize that need, or are prepared to act
on it." Istook has noticed a concerted effort by Indian interests to convince the public that the issue is beyond the reach of the democratic process.
"There is often a misconception that nothing can be done. That's inaccurate. It is very clear that Congress has broad and
unfettered authority to deal with these issues, and could do so if it were willing. Tribal sovereignty is
subject to the jurisdiction of the Congress--which could change it, or even undo it altogether." "The
challenge is that sovereignty means different things to different people. What we need to do is follow the Constitutional standards of equal
protection, for tribes and non-tribes. You will not solve the problems of Indian tribes by giving them a legal status different from everybody else.
Secondly, we need to allow tribes to have control of their own assets so they have less temptation to resort to special treatment. Feelings of
mistreatment often lead them to take unfair advantage with regard to sovereignty. And we need to create more
economic opportunities that are not dependent on special status and treatment." We are headed for more conflict, even disaster,
says Istook, if we don't soon address this basic violation of fundamental American principles: In our recent dealings with Indians, Istook
says, "we've created a system where some people have more rights than others, and that directly conflicts with American traditions and history. It
not only attacks the principle of equal rights, it attacks the root of democratic governance. We need to use something stronger than guilt to resolve
these issues." Many experts believe it will take years before the inevitable day of reckoning on sovereignty finally reaches the halls of Congress.
But the public mood is changing rapidly in certain places. Some observers believe this subject could mature into a bona fide political issue much
sooner.

State control over federal land hinders USFG encouragement for Natives’ independence,
Natives oppressed
Washburn University School of Law 2005 (“United States Court of Appeals: TENTH CIRCUIT,” November
10,
http://www.google.com/search?q=washburn+university+school+of+law&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS283&sa=2,
accessed on July 11, 2008)
Two factors distinguish the instant case from Colville. First, unlike the situation in Colville, the Band in this case
has not marketed an exemption from state taxation. "Thus, a central component to the reasoning of
Colville is inapplicable here." Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Richards, 379 F.3d 979, 985 (10th Cir. 2004). Second, unlike the
tribe in Colville, the record in this case clearly establishes that the Band has a significant economic interest
in the land at issue and the billboard advertising that is occurring thereon. Not only are the billboard
leases providing the Band with a significant portion of its current revenue, the record on appeal
establishes that the land is an important asset for the Band in terms of future economic development. In
sum, balancing the federal, tribal, and State interests against one another leads us to conclude that
allowing the State to exercise control over the land at issue would "threaten Congress' overriding
objective of encouraging tribal self-government and economic development." Mescalero, 462 U.S. at 341.
Thus, we agree with the district court that the State cannot exercise its police power to regulate the
land at issue.

State authority over Indian country is bad
Jiminez 1998, Staff Attorney at Indian Law Resource Center (Vanessa, “Concurrent Tribal and State Jurisdiction
Under Public Law 280,” p.1639 http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/47/pdf/jimenez.pdf?rd=1, accessed on
July 9, 2008)
In the context of a government’s sovereignty, jurisdiction is an integral, inherent aspect of authority, involving the
power to make and enforce rules, resolve disputes and conflict within the community, and maintain a
stable and safe environment through the application of criminal laws. Jurisdiction in Indian country
has as a shifting, precarious balance of power among multiple sovereigns. Federal, state, and tribal
governments share jurisdiction in Indian country, at times seamlessly, though more often with some
degree of conflict and controversy resulting from “the tensions that sharing jurisdiction imposes.”50
Moreover, the rules and principles that shape the parameters of jurisdiction in Indian country have long defied mechanistic application and
uniformity.51 Profound differences of history, sociology, and politics52 assure that notions of justice and
fairness will differ markedly among tribal, state, and federal governments.53 Each government seeks
formalized recognition of its autonomy and sovereignty, but may lack adequate resources to realize full
authority over the lands and people under its control.54 Issues of state federalism pervade the discussion of jurisdiction in
Indian country and therefore Public Law 280.55 Some states oppose assertions of tribal governmental authority
within state boundaries [1998] PUBLIC LAW 280 1641 and resist federal governmental primacy over Indian affairs.56 Many
Indian tribes are forced to make a Hobson’s choice: they can uncomfortably argue in favor of federal
plenary power over Indian affairs,57 or subject themselves to increased interference from the states.58
Federal government undermines Native American rights

Roleff 2008, Greenhaven Press Author (Tamara L., “Current Controversies: Native American Rights:
Introduction,” August, http://www.enotes.com/native-american-article/44414, accessed on July 9, 2008)
The history of federal policy toward Native Americans has reflected changing ideas about whether Indians should be assimilated into white
society or whether tribes should retain their sovereignty—their right to be independent and selfgoverning entities. Native Americans
have always maintained that each individual tribe is a sovereign nation and should therefore be
authorized to govern itself without outside influence. Official recognition of Native American
sovereignty has fluctuated according to the beliefs of presidents, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme
Court. Consequently, the rights of Native Americans have been expanded and curtailed at various times throughout the nation’s history.
When Europeans first colonized North America, each settlement recognized its neighboring Indian
tribes as self-governing, independent entities. The settlers negotiated treaties with Indians to secure
peace and regulate trade and the expansion of white settlements. After the Revolutionary War, the U.S.
Constitution gave Congress “plenary” power over all tribes; Congress continued to recognize Indian tribes as foreign
nations and negotiated treaties with them as equal governments. Federal policy toward America’s native residents
changed, however, when Andrew Jackson—renowned for his military campaigns against the Indians—
became president in 1829. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 required most of the eastern tribes to give
up their lands and move west of the Mississippi River, despite any guarantees of permanent residence
in their existing treaties with the government. When the Cherokees sued the state of Georgia in 1831 to
prevent the enforcement of the act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, declaring that
Indian tribes were “domestic dependent nations” that had lost their status as independent, foreign
nations. Forty years later, Congress enacted legislation that changed the status of tribes forever; the
new law (known as Section 71) eliminated the need for treaties with the Indian nations altogether by
allowing Congress to use legislation— which did not require the Indians’ consent—to govern the tribes.
The Dawes Act of 1887 further changed the lives of Indians. The act, also known as the General
Allotment Act, attempted to force the assimilation of Indians into white culture by mandating the
education of Indian children in specially built schools, forbidding Native American ceremonies, and
dismantling the reservations. Individual Indians were given plots of reservation land to farm; the remaining land was sold to white
farmers. Congress hoped that surrounding the Indians with white culture would encourage them to adopt white beliefs and practices, but this
policy failed abysmally because most Indians did not want to give up their culture.
AT: States CP – Patchwork Turn

States regulations lead to patchwork, slow solar energy development
Clean Edge 2002, clean-tech research and publishing firm (“Solar Opportunity Assessment Report,”
http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-soar.php, accessed on July 9, 2008)
Among the key challenges to growing the U.S. solar marketplace are: its small production scale, which keeps
quantities low and prices high; on-again-off-again government funding of solar research and development; a dearth of financing solutions,
pricing solar out of reach of most users; a patchwork of regulations related to solar, forcing manufacturers and
buyers of solar systems to meet different requirements in each state; a lack of coordination among
companies, government agencies, the solar and building industries, or potential buyers of solar
systems; a lack of standardized, plug-and-play systems that would greatly reduce the complexity and cost of designing and installing a solar-
energy system; and a lack of education about solar's benefits to a variety of audiences
AT: States CP – Federal Ownership

Federal government owns land for solar plants
Sietzen 2005 (Frank Sietzen, Jr., Space writer and author, May 1, 2005, MAPPS Lobbies Congress,
http://www.in.gov/igic/policy/mapps.pdf)
The order also excluded all U.S. public lands — meaning national-park acreage and other open recreational
lands owned by the federal government. According to MAPPS, this exclusion omits much of the western
states, which comprise the bulk of these lands. In Nevada, for instance, the federal government owns 91.9
percent of the total land area; in Alaska the amount is 66.7 percent; in Utah it owns 66.5 percent; and
in Idaho the federal government owns 66.4 percent of the land area. In the District of Columbia — home
base for most of the federal departments — however, federal ownership comprises only 26.3 percent of
available lands. Yet the Bush order calls for a Districtwide land inventory of all federal land ownership. The
most likely goal is to identify properties that could be sold off to generate revenue. Palatiello points out that
12 of the states that have larger federal land ownership than Washington, D.C., are not identified in the
executive order.
AT: States CP – State Management Perm
Perm: Do the Plan and allow state oversight …

States able to manage federal lands – any legal authority must be deliberately devolved by
congress
Gorte 1999, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (Rose W., “Constitutional Authority; the History of
Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and Disposal Authorities,” April 7,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-1009:1, accessed on July 9, 2008)
In 1993, Nye County, NV, began to take actions with respect to federal lands, including bulldozing roads on federal lands without permits, based
on the assertion that Nevada held title to the lands. The United States filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it owns and has authority to
manage the disputed lands within Nye County and that a county resolution regarding roads and rights of way was preempted as to roads and
corridors for which no valid right of way exists. The United States was granted summary judgment on these issues.42 County
governments in several states also have asserted authority over federal lands and attempted to specify
management of those lands, following the example of Catron County, NM.43 Laws that impose direct management
requirements on the lands or require local approvals for land use changes in conflict with federal laws, regulations, or purposes, etc. almost
certainly are preempted under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Cl. 2) of the Constitution.44 The cases make it clear that a new
initiative to reduce federal land ownership would require an Act of Congress, an avenue that has also
been pursued. Bills were introduced in the 95th, 96th, and 97th Congresses to change the retention
policy in FLPMA. In general, these bills would have authorized transferring the unreserved lands to
the states upon application, if the state had a land management agency with a multiple-use mandate.
However, none of these bills was reported by a committee, and thus, none saw any floor action.
AT: States CP – Coordination Turn
State action risks patchwork regulations deterring investment

Murray 08 US Congress to debate German-style feed-in tariff James Murray, BusinessGreen, 30 Jun 2008
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2220323/congress-debate-german-style
Inslee warned that the US risked missing out on billions of dollars of cleantech investment if it does not
do more to stimulate demand for such technologies. "The cost of inaction on global warming extends well
beyond the serious ecologic and human health issues that already are taking a toll on our environment," he
said. "There is also an opportunity cost if we fail to help America's brightest entrepreneurs to quench
public demand for clean energy technologies here in the US." The bill's supporters said with more than a
dozen states having already enacted a feed-in tariff or considering doing so, federal legislation was also
required to help avoid a "patchwork regulatory structure" for the renewables sector.
States never act in coordinated manner on incentives

No two states have decided to promote renewables in exactly the same way; both the methods and the scope
by which renewables are promoted vary. The lack of precedent in applying such incentives may explain the
variety of approaches. Other states that are contemplating deregulation or that have pending legislation are
carefully observing the success of these programs.
AT: Federalism DA – State Control = Corporate Control

Federal control of land only way to protect it- removing federal control ensures business
interests will trump states
O’Connell 05 Emmett O'Connell | March 20, 2005 | Permalink: Random thoughts on “This Sovereign Land”
http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/03/random_thoughts.html
In the last chapter of “This Sovereign Land,” Daniel Kemmis makes the observation that Western
Republicans have the inside track on the issue that will ensure political dominance for one party in the
region: whether any political party can be seen as being the source of collaborative efforts that will
eventually exert local and regional control over public lands in the West. A cynical Republican will
answer, “Of course it will be the GOP. Republicans, not Democrats, trust people to make their own
decisions.” This is at least true to the point that national environmental groups don’t trust local
collaborative efforts, but rather courts and the federal bureaucracy to do the right thing. But, in the
“Death of Environmentalism,” Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, argue that the national policy focus
of the current stock of environmentalists, rather than a broader focus on progressive issues, has backed enviro
groups into a corner, making them a stale and unsuccessful special interest. The same focus on national
issues that has marginalized environmentalism today is the same focus that has kept them from trusting and
recognizing the good in collaborative efforts. Also, Kemmis fails to address to what point and for what
reasons Western GOPers support cooperative efforts. I would argue that their support only goes so far as
to use collaborative efforts as a battering ram against federal control of lands, not to supplement that
control with local and regional control. By removing the federal government from the scene, and not
allowing any real control by local communities, governments and watershed groups to fill in the vacuum, the
space would eventually be filled by commercial interests. Westerners still would not control their
landscape, the control would have moved from Washington DC to New York City.
AT: Federalism DA – Non-unique

Federalism is low right now. Neither party believes in it.
Sager, columnist for the New York Post, 06 (“Living With Cultural Federalism,” Real Clear Politics,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/living_with_cultural_federalis.html, June 1,
Thus will Americans continue a great experiment in what has been called "cultural federalism."
Neither party has much in the way of a genuine commitment to the principle of federalism - the idea
that many policy decisions are best left to state and local governments - in either economic or social
affairs. But in a nation increasingly polarized by hot-button cultural questions, both parties would do well to recognize that
in our democracy, living together is often a matter of learning to live apart. Such recognition may
already be creeping into the national consciousness when it comes to gay marriage. While a solid majority of
Americans still oppose same-sex marriage (by a margin of 51-39 percent, according to a recent Pew survey), the country is split essentially 50-50
on the idea of writing a ban on gay marriage into the Constitution. That means that there are millions of Americans who, while ambivalent or
opposed to gay marriage personally (at least in their own states), are happy to let what happens in Massachusetts stay in Massachusetts. Or, as a
Gallup report issued earlier this month put it: "About a quarter of those who oppose making gay marriages legally
valid (28%) nevertheless oppose a constitutional amendment banning them." Similarly, a poll
commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign in April found that 49 percent of Americans favor
letting states write their own laws on marriage. Why this acceptance of a "leave-it-to-the-states" approach? Perhaps an
understanding is emerging in America that, as American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Greve put it, "You really don't want social policy in
the Constitution." Greve, who mans a lonely outpost in the culture wars as head of AEI's Federalism Project, wrote a paper after the 2000 election
calling on Republicans to remember their federalist faith when it comes to issues like abortion and marriage and drugs and guns - a faith forged
during a time when liberals controlled the levers of national power - despite the temptations of holding the presidency, Congress and a working
majority on the Supreme Court. Greve called the concept "cultural federalism." Professor Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi
Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, has called it "moral federalism."
Republicans in Congress and the White House, however, just call it "Shirley" - as in, "Shirley, you
can't be serious." "The Republican side of it has gone the other way," says Greve, almost six years after writing his
paper, pointing to the Terri Schiavo intervention, the all-out battle against state medical-marijuana laws, the marriage
amendment and, last but certainly not least, the No Child Left Behind Act (a "signal event" in the
GOP's abandonment of federalism, one which people seriously "misunderestimated"). "Whatever
commitment there was once to variegation and federalism" in the GOP, Greve says, "has been
trampled underfoot."
The federal government becomes more powerful after the terrorist attacks of September 11
Palmer, Vice President for International Programs, 02 (“ Limited Government after 9-11”
http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:zEOnY1IYvWsJ:www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v24n2/after911.pdf+%229
11%22+%22federal+government%22+%22power%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=googlecoop, April,
What are the likely long-term effects on American government of the terrorist attacks of September
11? What do changes in polls about “trust in government” mean? And how should advocates of limited
government respond to the changes brought about by the attacks? Not surprisingly, some observers see the
ultimate outcome of the attacks as bigger and more powerful government. For example, Sen. Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared that “the era of a shrinking federal government is over” and proposed
taking advantage of the attacks to create a “‘new’ New Deal.” Comparing the present with the mid-
1930s, Schumer said, “For the foreseeable future, the federal government will have to grow.”
AT: Federalism DA – Non-unique

U.S. values aren’t modeled – anti-bushism
Moravcsik, Professor of Politics, 05 (“Dream On America The U.S. Model: For years, much of the world did
aspire to the American way of life. But today countries are finding more appealing systems in their own backyards.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0125-01.htm, January 31, accessed on July 11, 2008)
Not long ago, the American dream was a global fantasy. Not only Americans saw themselves as a
beacon unto nations. So did much of the rest of the world. East Europeans tuned into Radio Free
Europe. Chinese students erected a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square. You had only to
listen to George W. Bush's Inaugural Address last week (invoking "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times) to appreciate just how deeply
Americans still believe in this founding myth. For many in the world, the president's rhetoric confirmed their worst fears of an imperial
America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests. But the greater danger may be a delusional America—one that believes,
despite all evidence to the contrary, that the American Dream lives on, that America remains a model for the world, one whose mission is
to spread the word. The gulf between how Americans view themselves and how the world views them was
summed up in a poll last week by the BBC. Fully 71 percent of Americans see the United States as a
source of good in the world. More than half view Bush's election as positive for global security. Other
studies report that 70 percent have faith in their domestic institutions and nearly 80 percent believe
"American ideas and customs" should spread globally. Foreigners take an entirely different view: 58
percent in the BBC poll see Bush's re-election as a threat to world peace. Among America's traditional allies, the
figure is strikingly higher: 77 percent in Germany, 64 percent in Britain and 82 percent in Turkey. Among the 1.3 billion members of the
Islamic world, public support for the United States is measured in single digits. Only Poland, the Philippines and India viewed Bush's
second Inaugural positively. Tellingly, the anti-Bushism of the president's first term is giving way to a more
general anti-Americanism. A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC
oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the
poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country. Says Doug Miller of
GlobeScan, which conducted the BBC report: "President Bush has further isolated America from the
world. Unless the administration changes its approach, it will continue to erode America's good name,
and hence its ability to effectively influence world affairs." Former Brazilian president Jose Sarney expressed the
sentiments of the 78 percent of his countrymen who see America as a threat: "Now that Bush has been re-elected, all I can say is, God
bless the rest of the world." The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard,
they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements. The loss of faith in the American Dream goes beyond
this swaggering administration and its war in Iraq. A President Kerry would have had to confront a similar disaffection, for it grows from
the success of something America holds dear: the spread of democracy, free markets and international institutions—globalization, in a
word. Countries today have dozens of political, economic and social models to choose from. Anti-
Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America, where countries have established
their own distinctive ways—none made in America. Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European
Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law—a
model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. In Asia, the rise of autocratic capitalism in
China or Singapore is as much a "model" for development as America's scandal-ridden corporate culture. "First we emulate," one
Chinese businessman recently told the board of one U.S. multinational, "then we overtake." Many are tempted to write off the new anti-
Americanism as a temporary perturbation, or mere resentment. Blinded by its own myth, America has grown incapable of recognizing its
flaws. For there is much about the American Dream to fault. If the rest of the world has lost faith in the American
model—political, economic, diplomatic—it's partly for the very good reason that it doesn't work as well
anymore. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: Once upon a time, the U.S. Constitution was a revolutionary
document, full of epochal innovations—free elections, judicial review, checks and balances, federalism and, perhaps most important,
a Bill of Rights. In the 19th and 20th centuries, countries around the world copied the document, not least in Latin America. So did
Germany and Japan after World War II. Today? When nations write a new constitution, as dozens have in the past two decades, they
seldom look to the American model. When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in.
They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to
adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in
American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies,"
he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American
campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories." So it is elsewhere. After American planes
and bombs freed the country, Kosovo opted for a European constitution. Drafting a post-apartheid
constitution, South Africa rejected American-style federalism in favor of a German model, which leaders
deemed appropriate for the social-welfare state they hoped to construct. Now fledgling African democracies look to South Africa as
their inspiration, says John Stremlau, a former U.S. State Department official who currently heads the international relations department
at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg: "We can't rely on the Americans." The new democracies are looking for
a constitution written in modern times and reflecting their progressive concerns about racial and social
equality, he explains. "To borrow Lincoln's phrase, South Africa is now Africa's 'last great hope'."
AT: Federalism DA – No Link

No federal ownership of land can occur without state consent – states
University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School 1976 (“Kleppe v. New Mexico ,”June 17,
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/kleppe.htm, accessed on July 9, 2008)
Appellees argue that if we approve the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act as a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Property
Clause, then we have sanctioned an impermissible intrusion on the sovereignty, legislative authority and police power of the State and have
wrongly infringed upon the State's traditional trustee powers over wild animals. The argument appears to be that Congress could obtain exclusive
legislative jurisdiction over the public lands in the State only by state consent, and that in the absence of such consent Congress lacks the power to
act contrary to state law This argument is without merit.... Appellees' claim confuses Congress' derivative legislative powers, which are not
involved in this case, with its powers under the Property Clause. Congress may acquire derivative legislative power from a state pursuant to Art. I,
§ 8, cl. 17, of the Constitution by consensual acquisition of land, or by nonconsensual acquisition followed by the State's subsequent cession of
legislative authority over the land. Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe (1885). In either case, the legislative jurisdiction acquired
may range from exclusive federal jurisdiction with no residual state police power, to concurrent, or
partial, federal legislative jurisdiction, which may allow the State to exercise certain authority. But
while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State's
consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress'
powers under the Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction
over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact
legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation
necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. "A different rule would place the public domain of the United States
completely at the mercy of state legislation...." lands contrary to state law. Hunt v. United States, supra. We hold today that the Property Clause
also gives Congress the power to protect wildlife on the public lands, state law notwithstanding.
AT: Nuke Power DA – No Link

No risk of tradeoff- nuclear power will not be used in the Western US
Western solar resources are potentially the best in the world and are almost exclusively found in the
Southwest—with Arizona being the hot spot of solar power. Western solar resources are enormous.
According to our analysis, 1,051,466 GWh could be generated by premium solar resources alone and would
be commensurate with total western energy demand of 1,092,160 GWh (see Exhibit 24). Premium solar
resource areas have the potential of over 480,000 MW of power, yet would occupy only about 0.2 % of
western lands. Wind potential in the West is also very large. Paradoxically, of all western states, California,
the birthplace of wind power, has few wind energy resources available for development compared to other
western states. Wind generating technologies were developed in the U.S. in the 1980s, but it was in Europe
that wind emerged from a niche technology to become today’s fastest growing generating technology. The
U.S., including the West, is currently seeing an explosion of new wind farms. According to our analysis,
there appear to be 282,506 MW of Class 4 and higher wind resources in the West, which could generate
930,455 GWh of electricity. Nuclear energy from fission is an enormous source of energy. Fission, the
process that we know as nuclear power today, is also the source of enormous controversy due to the inherent
dangers in operating with and storing nuclear material. Given the current environment, we do not believe
that new nuclear power plants will be built in the West in the next several years. Nevertheless, we
believe that existing nuclear plants will extend their operating licenses where economically and
technically feasible. If nuclear fusion could ever be used for power generation (the technology is still in
its infancy), it would provide unlimited amounts of energy with little environmental impact. That day,
however, is far off in the future.
AT: Nuke Power DA – No Link

Solar Power doesn’t threaten nuclear power
Moore, December 2007, adviser to government and industry, co-founder and former leader of
Greenpeace, and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies., (Patrick, Greenpeace is
wrong — we must consider nuclear power, http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/greenpeace-
is-wrong--we-must-consider-nuclear-power/2007/12/09/1197135284092.html, accessed July 9,
2008)
Greenpeace is deliberately misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar energy, both of
which are inherently intermittent and unreliable, can replace baseload power that is continuous and
reliable. Only three technologies can produce large amounts of baseload power: fossil fuels,
hydroelectric plants and nuclear power. Given that we want to reduce fossil fuels and that potential
hydroelectric sites are becoming scarce, nuclear power is the main option. But Greenpeace and its allies
remain in denial despite the fact that many independent environmentalists and now the IPCC see the situation
clearly. *IPCC= Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations
AT: Oil DA – No Link

Solar energy does not have the ability to replace oil
Singer, 2004. former space scientist and government scientific administrator, runs the Science
and Environmental Policy Project. ( S. Fred, Solar Energy Is Far from Ready to Replace
Petroleum, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15897, accessed July 8, 2008)
First, in the United States the principal use of petroleum is for transportation instead of electrical
generation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), transportation accounted for 68
percent of total U.S. petroleum consumption in 2002. Petroleum consumption for transportation is heavily
taxed--not subsidized--by local, state, and federal governments. Annually, the federal government alone
collects about $40 billion. Of this, more than $33 billion is spent on highways and similar improvements,
about $6 billion on mass transit, and about $70 million for the EPA-administered Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks Fund.
Solar does not trade off with oil

Lovaas 05 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND OIL DEPENDENCE In Business, Mar/Apr 2005 by
Lovaas, Deron http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5378/is_200503/ai_n21370848
In effect, no. It may seem counterintuitive, but alternative sources of electricity such as wind, solar, and
even nuclear power will have little impact on overall oil consumption. Why? A closer look at the pattern
of U.S. oil demand tells the story: An overwhelming majority of the oil we use (nearly 70 percent) ends
up in the gas tanks of our passenger cars, light trucks (e.g. SUVs), and commercial vehicles. By contrast,
electricity generation accounts for just three percent of total oil consumption in the U.S. Furthermore,
less than three percent of the electricity we generate is derived from oilcoal, natural gas, nuclear power, and
hydroelectric power make up the rest. (Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2003, Energy Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy).
AT: Water DA – Link Out

CSP plants use and recycle water efficiently
CSP plants normally use water for three main purposes: Steam generation. This water is normally
recycled but there may be losses through evaporation or leakage. Cooling. In all thermal power plants the
steam that comes out of the turbines needs to be cooled so that it condenses back to water. This is
normally done by evaporation of water in cooling towers. Sea water may also be used for cooling and this
function may be combined with desalination of sea water. Cleaning solar mirrors. Mirrors do need to be
cleaned periodically and this is sometimes done using jets of water.
CSP recycles water for conservation

Bennett 3/10/08, writer for Green Options Media, Clean Energy Intro: Solar Thermal,
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/10/clean-energy-intro-solar-thermal/, accessed 7-9-2008
It’s called “Concentrated Solar Power” or C.S.P. The idea is simple; no complex chemistry or fancy silicon
wafers required. Glorified mirrors shaped like satellite dishes (or parabolic troughs) direct the sun’s rays
towards a reservoir. The concentrated solar heat boils water into steam, and steam powers a turbine.
When the water cools off it’s collected and cycled back through the system. The mirrors can even track
the sun across the sky to maximize efficiency. Water is not the only fluid that can be used, but its unique
properties have made it popular.
Energy Plants Can Utilize Dry Cooling Systems

Bureau of Energy Efficiency,
http://www.energymanagertraining.com/power_plants/condenser&cooling_sys.htm
Accessed July 7, 2008)
Closed Cycle Dry Cooling Systems: Dry cooling systems are used where there is insufficient water, or
where the water is too expensive to be used in an evaporative system. Dry cooling systems are the least
used systems as they have a much higher capital cost, higher operating temperatures, and lower efficiency
than wet cooling systems.In the dry cooling system, heat transfer is by air to finned tubes. The minimum
temperature that can be theoretically provided is that of the dry air, which can be regularly over 30º C and up
to 40º C on typical summer afternoons in Queensland. Compare this to wet cooling towers, which cool
towards the wet bulb temperature, which is typically 20º C on summer afternoons. The steam condensing
pressures and temperatures of a dry cooled unit are significantly higher than a wet cooled unit, due to the low
transfer rates of dry cooling and operation at the dry bulb temperature. There are two basic types of dry
cooling systems: 1. The direct dry cooling system; and 2. The indirect dry cooling system. Variations on the
full dry and full wet systems are hybrid systems, which may be wet with some dry or dry with part wet.
Direct Dry Cooling System.In the direct dry system, the turbine exhaust steam is piped directly to the air-
cooled, finned tube, condenser. The finned tubes are usually arranged in the form of an 'A' frame or delta
over a forced draught fan to reduce the land area. The steam trunk main has a large diameter and is as short
as possible to reduce pressure losses, so that the cooling banks are usually as close as possible to the
turbine.The direct system is the most commonly used as it has the lowest capital cost, but significantly
higher operating costs. The power required to operate the fans of this system is several times that
required for wet towers, being typically 4 to 5 MW for a 420 MW unit.

Water Shortages Make Dry Cooling Advantageous
De Backer and Wurtz, 2003 (Dr. Luc and William, Report Prepared for the Cooling Technology Institute,
Accessed July 7, 2008 http://web.ead.anl.gov/bajatermoeis/documents/docs/bppwg_attachc_2003wet-
dry_cooling_paper.pdf)
In a dry cooling system, heat is transferred from the process fluid, steam, to the cooling air via extended
surfaces or fin tube bundles. The performance of dry cooling systems is primarily dependent on the
ambient dry bulb temperature of the air. Since the ambient dry bulb temperature of the air is higher than
the wet bulb temperature (wet bulb is the basis for a wet cooling tower design), dry cooling systems are less
efficient. Although the capital cost of a dry cooling system is usually higher than that of a wet cooling
system, the cost of providing suitable cooling water and other operational and equipment expenses may
be such that the dry cooling system is more cost effective over the projected life of the power plant. In dry
cooling systems, the turbine exhaust is connected directly to the air cooled steam condenser (that is why it is
called a direct system) as shown in Figure 3. The steam exhaust duct has a large diameter and is usually as
short as possible to reduce pressure losses. The finned tubes are arranged in the form of an A-frame to reduce
the required plot area. The advantages and disadvantages of dry cooling systems are shown in table 2
below ADVANTAGES OF DRY COOLING Can be located at fuel source No water required No impact
on environment No plume formation Less permitting required DISADVANTAGES OF DRY COOLING
Large plot area required Less efficient Generates more noise
Parallel Condensing Systems More Efficient in High Temperatures

De Backer and Wurtz, 2003 (As Cited Previously)
Parallel condensing systems, have been developed to save water, while avoiding the high cost of dry
cooling systems and to ensure a relatively low steam turbine back pressure at high ambient conditions.
An excessive rise in steam turbine backpressure during periods of peak ambient temperatures and
demand will result in a loss of efficiency of the steam turbine- generator set. In such a case, the dry
section of the system may be designed to reject the total heat load at a low ambient temperature while
maintaining the turbine backpressure within specified limits at high ambient temperatures using the wet part
of the system. One way of sizing the wet part of a PCS cooling system is to limit the quantity of make-
up water according to the local water availability. A PCS system is a synergy of established cooling
system technologies and combines some positive features of dry and wet cooling systems; the water
consumption is reduced compared to a 100 % wet system, the performance is improved compared to a
100 % dry system and the capital cost decreases as the proportion of wet in the PCS system is
increased.
PCS Creates Significant Savings in Temperatures

De Backer and Wurtz, 2003 (As Cited Previously)
Because of restrictions on thermal discharges to natural bodies of water, almost all power generating plants or
large industries requiring cooling will require closed cycle cooling systems. Evaporative or wet cooling
systems (cooling towers) generally are the most economical choice for closed cycle cooling systems
where an adequate supply of suitable water is available at reasonable cost to meet the make-up
requirements of these systems. If only the plume is an issue the solution may be a wet/dry cooling system
(hybrid cooling towers). But although these systems may save some water, the amount of make-up water is
still significant and a plume will still be present under certain atmospheric conditions, and this may be
unacceptable if the power plant is close to a major highway or airport. If only a limited amount of water is
available, or the water cost is too high, most power plants tend to go for a 100 % dry system without
considering the PCS system. In some cases, a dry cooling system has been selected even if water is
available at reasonable cost where political or environmental considerations prevail. But by selecting a
parallel cooling system that is designed to use the available water for a cooling tower on hot summer
days, the performance of air cooled condensers can be enhanced and significant savings on the capital
and operational costs of the cooling system can be expected.

On balance solar uses less water than other sources
Of renewable generating technologies, wind power, dish Stirling, and PV are the true water misers and use
only one hundredth of the water required by other generating technologies. Only process water is used for
turbine blade or glass and mirror washing. Therefore, these generating technologies should be of greatest
interest to southwestern states where water is a precious resource and where an ever-growing population and
associated water demand have put water supply reliability in the public eye.
Energy Plants Can Utilize Dry Cooling Systems

Bureau of Energy Efficiency, 2004 (Condenser and Cooling System,
http://www.energymanagertraining.com/power_plants/condenser&cooling_sys.htm)
Closed Cycle Dry Cooling Systems: Dry cooling systems are used where there is insufficient water, or
where the water is too expensive to be used in an evaporative system. Dry cooling systems are the least
used systems as they have a much higher capital cost, higher operating temperatures, and lower efficiency
than wet cooling systems. In the dry cooling system, heat transfer is by air to finned tubes. The minimum
temperature that can be theoretically provided is that of the dry air, which can be regularly over 30º C and up
to 40º C on typical summer afternoons in Queensland. Compare this to wet cooling towers, which cool
towards the wet bulb temperature, which is typically 20º C on summer afternoons. The steam condensing
pressures and temperatures of a dry cooled unit are significantly higher than a wet cooled unit, due to the low
transfer rates of dry cooling and operation at the dry bulb temperature. There are two basic types of dry
cooling systems: 1. The direct dry cooling system; and 2. The indirect dry cooling system. Variations on the
full dry and full wet systems are hybrid systems, which may be wet with some dry or dry with part wet.
Direct Dry Cooling System: In the direct dry system, the turbine exhaust steam is piped directly to the air-
cooled, finned tube, condenser. The finned tubes are usually arranged in the form of an 'A' frame or delta
over a forced draught fan to reduce the land area. The steam trunk main has a large diameter and is as short
as possible to reduce pressure losses, so that the cooling banks are usually as close as possible to the turbine.
The direct system is the most commonly used as it has the lowest capital cost, but significantly higher
operating costs. The power required to operate the fans of this system is several times that required for
wet towers, being typically 4 to 5 MW for a 420 MW unit.
Water Shortages Make Dry Cooling Advantageous

De Backer and Wurtz, 2003 (Dr. Luc and William, report prepared for the Cooling Technology Institute, WHY
EVERY AIR COOLED STEAM CONDENSER NEEDS A COOLING TOWER,
http://web.ead.anl.gov/bajatermoeis/documents/docs/bppwg_attachc_2003wet-dry_cooling_paper.pdf)
In a dry cooling system, heat is transferred from the process fluid, steam, to the cooling air via extended
surfaces or fin tube bundles. The performance of dry cooling systems is primarily dependent on the
ambient dry bulb temperature of the air. Since the ambient dry bulb temperature of the air is higher than
the wet bulb temperature (wet bulb is the basis for a wet cooling tower design), dry cooling systems are less
efficient. Although the capital cost of a dry cooling system is usually higher than that of a wet cooling
system, the cost of providing suitable cooling water and other operational and equipment expenses may
be such that the dry cooling system is more cost effective over the projected life of the power plant. In dry
cooling systems, the turbine exhaust is connected directly to the air cooled steam condenser (that is why it is
called a direct system) as shown in Figure 3. The steam exhaust duct has a large diameter and is usually as
short as possible to reduce pressure losses. The finned tubes are arranged in the form of an A-frame to reduce
the required plot area. The advantages and disadvantages of dry cooling systems are shown in table 2
below ADVANTAGES OF DRY COOLING Can be located at fuel source No water required No impact
on environment No plume formation Less permitting required DISADVANTAGES OF DRY COOLING
Large plot area required Less efficient Generates more noise

PCS combines advantages of wet and dry cooling systems
Parallel condensing systems, have been developed to save water, while avoiding the high cost of dry
cooling systems and to ensure a relatively low steam turbine back pressure at high ambient conditions.
An excessive rise in steam turbine backpressure during periods of peak ambient temperatures and
demand will result in a loss of efficiency of the steam turbine- generator set. In such a case, the dry
section of the system may be designed to reject the total heat load at a low ambient temperature while
maintaining the turbine backpressure within specified limits at high ambient temperatures using the wet part
of the system. One way of sizing the wet part of a PCS cooling system is to limit the quantity of make-
up water according to the local water availability. A PCS system is a synergy of established cooling
system technologies and combines some positive features of dry and wet cooling systems; the water
consumption is reduced compared to a 100 % wet system, the performance is improved compared to a
100 % dry system and the capital cost decreases as the proportion of wet in the PCS system is
increased.
PCS Creates Significant Savings in Temperatures

Because of restrictions on thermal discharges to natural bodies of water, almost all power generating plants or
large industries requiring cooling will require closed cycle cooling systems. Evaporative or wet cooling
systems (cooling towers) generally are the most economical choice for closed cycle cooling systems
where an adequate supply of suitable water is available at reasonable cost to meet the make-up
requirements of these systems. If only the plume is an issue the solution may be a wet/dry cooling system
(hybrid cooling towers). But although these systems may save some water, the amount of make-up water is
still significant and a plume will still be present under certain atmospheric conditions, and this may be
unacceptable if the power plant is close to a major highway or airport. If only a limited amount of water is
available, or the water cost is too high, most power plants tend to go for a 100 % dry system without
considering the PCS system. In some cases, a dry cooling system has been selected even if water is
available at reasonable cost where political or environmental considerations prevail. But by selecting a
parallel cooling system that is designed to use the available water for a cooling tower on hot summer
days, the performance of air cooled condensers can be enhanced and significant savings on the capital
and operational costs of the cooling system can be expected.
CSP plants require little water and can desalinate

CSP plants can also operate with a very small annual water requirement because they can be air-
cooled. And CSP has some unique climate-friendly features. It can be used effectively for desalinating
brackish water or seawater. That is useful for many developing countries today, and it's a must-have
for tens if not hundreds of millions of people if we don't act in time to stop global warming and dry out
much of the planet. Such desertification would, ironically, mean even more land ideal for CSP.

CSP recycles water for conservation
Bennett 3/10/08, writer for Green Options Media, Clean Energy Intro: Solar Thermal,
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/10/clean-energy-intro-solar-thermal/, accessed 7-9-2008
It’s called “Concentrated Solar Power” or C.S.P. The idea is simple; no complex chemistry or fancy silicon
wafers required. Glorified mirrors shaped like satellite dishes (or parabolic troughs) direct the sun’s rays
towards a reservoir. The concentrated solar heat boils water into steam, and steam powers a turbine.
When the water cools off it’s collected and cycled back through the system. The mirrors can even track
the sun across the sky to maximize efficiency. Water is not the only fluid that can be used, but its unique
properties have made it popular.
CSP plants use and recycle water efficiently

CSP plants normally use water for three main purposes: Steam generation. This water is normally
recycled but there may be losses through evaporation or leakage. Cooling. In all thermal power plants the
steam that comes out of the turbines needs to be cooled so that it condenses back to water. This is
normally done by evaporation of water in cooling towers. Sea water may also be used for cooling and this
function may be combined with desalination of sea water. Cleaning solar mirrors. Mirrors do need to be
cleaned periodically and this is sometimes done using jets of water.
AT: Water DA – Impact T/O

Western Water Shortages Fail to Affect Metro Areas
Beth Anderson, Staff Writer, 11/6/07, “Water Shortage Could Transform Markets,” NuWire Investor,
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/water-shortage-could-transform-markets-51332.aspx, Accessed July 9, 2008
With nearly 100 percent indoor water recycling, stringent outdoor water conservation measures and incentive
programs, Las Vegas may be able keep its water supply high enough to sustain development. But if the
population continues to grow and the water supply continues to shrink, investors interested in Las
Vegas real estate could find themselves facing a dried-up housing market. Still, with growth and profits on
the rise, it is unlikely that Las Vegas will run completely dry. “Investors should always remember that
water flows toward money—it’s not different than oil or electricity,” Grady Gammage, former
president of the Central Arizona Project, said in an e-mail interview. “The booming cities of the west
will not ‘run dry’ no matter how complex the water situation becomes.” Las Vegas isn’t the only city
dealing with water shortages. Phoenix, Arizona, home to 20 percent of the state’s total population, is also
seeing a residential influx. "Residents in Phoenix have been told since the 1930s that growth will soon be
severely limited because of the lack of water,” Robert Balling, professor at Arizona State University,
wrote in an editorial for The Arizona Republic. “Millions of residents later, we continue to hear the
same prediction ….[W]ithout planning, the day could come when Phoenix faces a real water crisis.” For
now, Phoenix’s water supply is in relatively good shape. "Phoenix has a large and extremely
sophisticated water supply based on two major sources of ‘surface’ or renewable water—the Salt and
Verde Rivers,” Gammage said in an e-mail interview. “At current consumption levels, that supply
would support a population more than twice the current population….Phoenix is in better shape with a
water supply for future growth than any other major city in the arid region of the western U.S.”
Arizona is already taking action to hand over control of local water supplies. County supervisors require
developers of new subdivisions to ensure an adequate water supply in keeping with a law passed Sept. 19,
according to the Mohave Daily News. If the county does not pass a unanimous, non-rescindable ordinance,
the responsibility for passing regulations falls to the cities and towns. Developers within Active Management
Areas, all of which lie near Arizona’s large cities, must demonstrate an “assured water supply” of 100 years'
worth of water before selling subdivision parcels, according to the Mohave Daily News. Developers outside
of the Active Management Areas are required only to show an “adequate water supply,” meaning developers
must inform potential buyers about water supply limitations if there is not a 100-year supply of water,
according to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Strict development measures such as the ones
within Phoenix’s Active Management Areas may significantly limit development. That may cause a spike in
the area’s housing prices and rental rates, at least in the short term. Right now, Phoenix has some of the
cheapest water in the west, according to Gammage, but if base rates are raised high enough, real estate
in the area will drop in price. Real estate investors would be wise to pay attention to the water policies
of Las Vegas, Phoenix and other major cities in the Southwest to learn which measures work best to
keep profits flowing.
AT: Silicon DA – Innovations solve Shortages

Small Companies are taking the initiative and building alternative solutions to silicon
CNET News, 2006 (March 9, Solar industry chases a cheaper kilowatt, http://news.cnet.com/Solar-industry-
chases-a-cheaper-kilowatt/2100-1008_3-6047664.html, Accessed July 7, 2008)
Established solar providers are betting that increased silicon capacity and improved manufacturing
will make solar electricity more affordable and stoke more demand. But several smaller companies are
widely varying routes with the same goal in mind. Many companies are investing in advanced
manufacturing techniques that cut down on the amount of silicon required to make a panel. Evergreen
Solar, for example, has devised a "string ribbon" production method which it says reduces silicon waste and
boosts the efficiency of panels, thus lowering the overall system costs. Silicon-based solar panels dominate
the market. But several smaller companies are challenging the incumbents with solar cells built from
materials other than silicon. Start-ups Miasole, Nanosolar and DayStar Technologies are using so-called
thin film solar cell processing and nanotechnology in an effort to boost efficiency and lower costs. "There
are questions marks around the type of efficiency (thin film technology) can get and the longevity of the
cells. But these companies are moving forward rapidly, beyond the R&D stage and into production,"
said Ron Pernick, principal of Clean Edge. Another approach is solar concentrators, where solar panels are
equipped with mirrors to focus the sun rays on a photovoltaic cell to make them more productive at creating
electricity. These products could be used to supplement the power of a large warehouse or retail outlet, for
example. Energy Innovations, SolFocus, Solaria and Pacific SolarTech are working on concentrators. These
systems are being pilot-tested, and the companies are expected to commercialize their products over the next
year. g widely varying routes with the same goal in mind.
AT: Silicon DA – No Link

Semiconductors have their own sources of Silicon, no competition
View From Silicon Valley 9/15/06 (“Solar Power Wafer Demand”
http://www.viewfromsiliconvalley.com/id263.html, July 8, 2008)
"While the semiconductor industry has created a rather financially unhealthy supply chain, the photovoltaic industry by contrast has
almost no supply chain. For 30 years the photovoltaic industry relied primarily on scrap silicon from the
semiconductor silicon production chain. Fortunately for the photovoltaic industry, its new millennium growth spurt
occurred at a time when the semiconductor polysilicon industry was in a period of vast overcapacity. Thus a plentiful low-price
supply of polysilicon was available for the period ranging from the late 1990s to the year 2003. "The
year 2004 brought an end to this era of cheap plentiful polysilicon. In 2004 semiconductor polysilicon
demand increased 15% and photovoltaic polysilicon demand increased by 45%. These demand surges
created a dynamic where demand outstripped supply. With a polysilicon shortage thrust upon the year
2005, the two polysilicon demanding industries are left to compete for the available material. The
winner of this struggle is obvious. The semiconductor industry, it owns many of the plants, and it has a
financial structure that allows it to outbid the photovoltaic industry on price. "This scarcity has evidenced a
basic flaw in the development strategy for photovoltaic development. The photovoltaic industry has no viable supply chain for the raw
material that it has selected for accelerated growth. It basically has been lucky to be able to develop to its present stage without its own
supply chain.
AT: Silicon DA – No Link

CSP doesn’t use silicon, which avoids trade-off
The Economist, 08 (The power of concentration; Solar energy, 7/9/08, L/N)
Solar power, of course, does not produce climate-changing greenhouse gases. But it also excites utilities
because it generates the most power just when it is needed: on hot, sunny days when people turn on air
conditioners. And CSP provides a way around the main drawbacks of solar power from photovoltaic
cells. Unlike them, it does not involve expensive silicon wafers. And some designs provide power round
the clock, not just when the sun is shining, by storing energy in the form of molten salt.
CSPs don’t require the same specialized silicon

PolicyMatters.net 07, a policy journal run by the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy
(“California’s Photovoltaic Gamble” ,http://www.policymatters.net/langton_solar.php, July 9,2008)
In light of the market realities facing photovoltaic technology, the CSI’s nearly exclusive focus on PV
incentives is risky and unjustified.In order to capture the optimal benefits of solar energy, the CSI
should shift its focus to include non-PV technologies. Many non-PV solar technologies are closer to
market, more effective at generating energy, and generate larger amounts of energy than solar panels.
Incentives for non-PV would push for the maturity of an alternative solar market, while making a significant
contribution towards California’s renewable energy goals. Non-PV technologies—particularly
concentrating solar power technologies (CSPs)—rely on conventional raw materials rather than the
specialty materials required by PV technologies. The production benefits of the learning curve and
economies of scale apply to CSP technologies, but the supply risks associated with the specialized
materials needed for PV do not. Some CSP technologies are nearer to commercialization than PV
technology and would require smaller incentives to push these technologies to cost-competitiveness with
fossil fuel sources. Three leading concentrated solar technologies are solar trough, power tower, and Stirling
dish technology. According to the California Energy Commission, CSP technologies have the potential to
reach a capacity of approximately one million megawatts in California.
AT: Silicon DA – AT: Silicon Scarcity

Solar panel prices will drop soon
Christian Science Monitor, June 5 2008. (Ben Arnoldy, Staff Writer, Brighter future for solar panels: silicon
shortage eases, http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/06/05/brighter-future-for-solar-panels-silicon-
shortage-eases/, accessed July 7, 2008)
Quartz, the raw material for solar panels, is one of the most abundant minerals on earth. But for years, the
solar industry has faced a bottleneck in processing quartz into polysilicon, a principal material used in most
solar panels. The problem stalled a steady decline in prices for solar panels. Now the silicon shortage
may be coming to an end, predict some solar analysts, thanks to new factories coming online. If true, the
price for solar panel modules could start falling by as much as a third by 2010, says Travis Bradford,
president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development in Cambridge, Mass. That’s good news
for an industry that remains one of the most expensive power sources.
New techs solve silicon shortage

MIT Technology Review, 2008
(http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=solar&id=19369&a=, Accessed
July 7, 2008)
Powered by $77 million in new investment, startup Heliovolt, based in Austin, TX, will build a factory next
year for mass-producing a new type of solar cell that could, in much of the United States, make solar
electricity as cheap as electricity from the grid. The company will be scaling up a new manufacturing
technique that could produce high-performance thin-film solar cells more reliably than other methods.
Heliovolt is one of several startups developing a type of thin-film solar cell that converts light into electricity
with a micrometers-thick layer of a copper-indium-gallium selenide (CIGS) semiconductor. Thin-film solar
cells are attractive because they could produce electricity cheaper than conventional silicon solar cells.
Although thin-film cells produce less electricity per square meter than conventional silicon solar cells
do, they make up for this by using orders of magnitude less active material per square meter. This can
result in significant savings. For example, generating one watt of electricity requires about 80 cents'
worth of silicon, but it only requires a penny's worth of a semiconductor used in a thin-film cell, says
John Benner, who manages electronic materials for photovoltaics research at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), in Golden, CO. (Heliovolt is working with NREL to further develop its cells.) The
challenge has been to reliably make thin-film solar cells at a large scale. In the lab, CIGS solar cells have
shown the highest efficiency of any thin-film cell (19.5 percent), exceeding that of some types of silicon solar
panels made today. But, while no one expects to reach this level of efficiency in mass-produced cells, it has
proved difficult to reliably make them with even a minimum level of efficiency needed to compete with other
types of solar cells. Heliovolt's new manufacturing method, however, could prove more reliable than
others, Benner says, by providing more control over the composition of the semiconductor film.
AT: Silicon DA – No Trade-Off

Oversupply of silicon coming to market- no risk of the trade off
CNET 08 March 20, 2008 12:13 PM PDT Solar industry bubble will pop, but continue to grow Posted by Martin
LaMonica http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9899707-54.html?hhTest=1
The most vexing problem facing the solar electric industry the past few years has been a shortage of
silicon, the most common material used to make solar cells. But once that silicon shortage eases, prices
for products could start drop significantly--and dig into solar companies' profits. Lux Research on
Thursday published a summary of a report that predicts that the solar bubble will burst next year. An
oversupply of silicon won't be the only reason that prices will fall, according to Lux's report. Several
other solar technologies are emerging that will give incumbent solar photovoltaic providers more
competition, including thin-film solar cells made from materials other than silicon. "The market is now
approaching a tipping point: We project that the supply of solar modules will exceed demand in 2009, leading
to falling prices and a shakeout among companies that aren't prepared to thrive in this new environment--
particularly crystalline silicon players that haven't invested in new thin-film technologies," said the report's
lead author, Ted Sullivan, in a statement. Traditional panels will also get a run for their money from
concentrating PV systems, solar thermal, and organic solar cells, which are all maturing, said Lux Research.
The findings from the company, which specializes in nanotechnology, are consistent with what many people
in the solar industry have been saying for some time. The constraints on silicon supply are easing, which
should put more price pressure on manufacturers in the coming years. However, the overall solar
industry is expected to continue to grow rapidly. Even Lux forecasts that the annual growth rate will be 27
percent over the next five years--becoming a $70 billion market by 2012. As a result, what's likely to happen
is that there will be consolidation among the several existing solar suppliers and the dozens of start-ups that
have entered the field over the last few years.
AT: Silicon DA – No Impact

Shortage leads to new better tech
Copper Development Association 08 (June 21, New Copper Solar Cells Promise a Bright Future
http://www.copper.org/publications/newsletters/discover/2008/Winter/pdf/dc_win2008_1.pdf, July 7, 2008)
Renewable energy is the hottest topic in energy circles these days. It refers to “green” energy sources like plant-based biofuels that can be
regenerated, as well as natural sources such as wind, hydro, geothermal and solar power, which can’t be depleted. Using renewables in place of
carbon-based fuels such as oil and gas offers obvious environmental and even political advantages. However, most of these alternative energy
sources are still in development and require subsidies or incentives to become practical. In the case of solar electrical generation,
the economics have actually gotten worse, although this situation is poised for a significant turnaround.
Copper and its alloys are vital to energy production, including renewable energy. Copper provides
both high heat-transfer capability and superior electrical conductivity, helping to increase the efficiency of all types
of systems, from direct-exchange geothermal heat pumps for home heating to today’s high-tech, high-megawatt wind farms. Solar hot-water
systems, which typically include copper tubing and heat exchangers, are familiar to many homeowners. Less well known is that copper is
becoming equally valuable in solar-electrical, or photovoltaic (PV) systems. These systems convert sunlight to electricity through silicone-based
semiconductors and thin-film materials such as cadmium telluride and gallium arsenide. But the most promising energy-generating material on
our solar horizon is copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, or CIGS. A CIGS cell holds the record for the total percentage of energy converted
(19.5%) from direct sunlight. Despite today’s explosive growth in solar power, and increased production of
solar cells, the cost of PV power remains high—and continues to rise due to a worldwide shortage of
cell-grade silicon. This is where CIGS offers an important advantage. Compared to silicon, which
requires multiple manufacturing steps before the material is shaped into individual cell wafers, the
CIGS process is relatively energy-efficient, and its technology has advanced to a point where the
material can now be deposited as a “coating” on inexpensive strips of material.
CIGS cells viable for mass-market production

Marshall 05 Posted by Matt Marshall on June 9, 2005 The San Jose Mercury News 05
(http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/06/09/nanosolar_miasole_stir_up_solar_cell_market.html, July 8, 2008)
This is good news, because it suggests the cutting-edge technology developed by these companies -- thin-foil
instead of bulky silicon-based panels -- is really going to be viable soon. Instead of years out, as some
had assumed, this stuff will be delivered as soon as this year, we're told. That's great, because it creates
a virtuous cycle: If the cells are as cheap as the companies say they are, government subsidies will be
reduced, and large companies will see the economic benefit of buying the solar cells for their rooftops.
Slowly, homeowners will start buying too. It's great for the environment, and for our long-term supply
of power. Now, Miasole's chief executive David Pearce tells us that the two firms, Kleiner and Mohr Davidow, both were seeking to
invest in Miasole (he called it a "bake-off"), and that he ended up taking money from Kleiner. We hasten to add, we don't know any more
details. Perhaps the interest was because Miasole's technology has been used successfully in the disk-drive and optical industries, and so
it was a safer bet at the margin, than Nanosolar, which is setting its own course. Perhaps not. Both are using the copper alloy
called CIGS for their solar cell semiconductor material. (Update II: MDV's Erik Straser led the investment in
Nanosolar, while we're told Kleiner's Aileen Lee led the investment in Miasole. Notworthy because we mentioned them both here.) But
the people we have talked with about the market lately, including Mohr Davidow's Straser, and Barry Cinnamon, of Akeena, one of the
nation's largest installers, all agree... ...that the market is red-hot: You'll sell whatever your produce, because of
significant excess demand. So there's more than enough room for two players in a solar market that is
around $5 billion this year, and likely to be $6 billion next year. CIGS can be as efficient (and durable)
as conventional solar cells. CIGS cells can be almost 20% efficient -- however, this is at laboratory scale
and uses fairly expensive process technology. Companies that seek to produce CIGS modules
commercially will generally initially shoot for the 12-15% range as the sweetspot that optimally trades
off cost and performance. In this range, CIGS modules are still as efficient as the bulk of the silicon
modules on the market today. With further R&D, modules as efficient as 20% can then come to market. [Note that the best
other thin-film module on the market today, Unisolar's, is 6.2-6.4% efficient...so CIGS modules will be essentially twice as efficient.]
AT: Silicon DA – No Impact

Greater Demand Leads to Lower Silicon Prices and more Silicon
De Watcher 07 Bruno De Wachter on Tue, 2007-02-20 08:30.Leonardo Energy 07, Poly-silicon shortage holds
back PV growth Initiative managed by the European Copper Institute(http://www.leonardo-
energy.org/drupal/node/1677, July 8, 2008)
The manufacturing of Photovoltaic (PV) systems is one of the fastest growing energy related sectors in the world, with an annual growth
rate of more than forty percent. Interestingly, this growth has not been restrained at the demand-side but rather at the supply side. The
poly-silicon industry simply cannot keep up with the growing demand. Silicon is one of the most common mineral elements on earth.
But despite its abundance, the production of refined metallurgical silicon, used to manufacture semiconductors and PV cells, is
expensive, complicated, and energy intensive. It is very difficult to ramp up production quickly, and the industry was unprepared for the
recent surge in demand. In 2006, demand from the solar PV industry surpassed demand from the
semiconductor industry for the first time. Shell sold its crystalline silicon PV business at the beginning
of 2006, to focus entirely on thin-film technology. The sale was due in part to silicon supply disruptions. Many other
PV manufacturing companies entered into long-term supply agreements with silicon producers to help
mitigate the risk of making huge capital investments to enhance production. Widespread expansion in
production capacity is currently ongoing. HSC, one of the world largest manufacturers of poly-silicon, is upgrading its
plant in Hemlock, Michigan from the current 10,000 metric tons per year to 14,500 metric tons by 2008 and 19,000 in 2009. Not only
is the worldwide production capacity growing, there are also significant efficiency improvements being
made to the silicon refining process. These investments are expected to bring down poly-silicon prices
in the next few years. The knock-on effect will result in a decreasing manufacturing cost for solar PV
cells.
AT: Econ DA – Link turns

Solar power key boosts the economy
Lozanova 08 Solar Energy Creating Economic Boom for Nevada Written by Sarah Lozanova Published on July
3rd, 2008 http://www.stoptoquop.org/?cat=14
Solar projects totaling more than 10,000 MW have land requests from the Bureau of Land Management in
Southern Nevada. If constructed, these solar plants would bring over $40 billion of investment to Nevada.
Power plants benefit the economy in the short-term by creating large quantities of construction jobs. In the
long-term, they create plant operations jobs, tax revenue, raise property values, and generate income through
land leases. A recent example is Acciona’s Nevada Solar One, located in Boulder City, NV.
Solar power expansion key to the economy

Environmental News Service 1/27/05, Solar Industry Drums Up Congressional Support, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-27-09.asp
The industry effort was supported by New Hampshire Republican Congressman Charles Bass. "I will use
every opportunity as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to advocate the Roadmap's
targets as a minimum of what is possible," he said. "Solar energy will be a practical and cost efficient
component of the United States' energy mix." "Solar power can play an important role in fueling
America's future economic growth," said Senator James Jeffords, a Vermont Independent. "It can provide
a clean, renewable and inexpensive source of energy while simultaneously creating new high-tech
jobs."
Utilities are freaking out over potential greenhouse regulations- competitive CSP power key
to assuage those fears
Utilities are also concerned that there may eventually be constraints on greenhouse gas emissions.
Because CSP plants do not emit carbon dioxide, they allow utilities to generate electricity without
emitting that greenhouse gas. Utility concerns about future greenhouse gas regulations are being fueled
by actions taken throughout the country. In September 2006, California enacted the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25
percent by 2020.53 As of October 2006, more than 300 mayors representing over 50 million Americans had
agreed to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.54 Constraints on greenhouse emissions may
make fossil fuel-generated power more expensive, thereby improving the economics of CSP projects.
AT: Econ DA – Link Turns

Expert studies prove CSP helps the economy
CSP also provides for a growing industry that can provide an economic stimulus to the State.57 Several
States recommended that it would be useful if DOE provided an assessment of the economic development
benefits of CSP. As a result, economic studies were done for Nevada, New Mexico, and California. In
each case the State was asked to select an expert organization to perform the study. This was done to
assure the analysis was done by independent experts that were credible to the State. Nevada and New Mexico
each selected one of their universities to do the analysis based on its expertise in doing similar analyses for
the State. There was no peer review of these reports other than that done by the States. California did not
recommend an organization, but was comfortable with the expertise of the organization selected by DOE.
This report did undergo a peer review.
CSP boosts economic growth

The report concluded that “investment in CSP power plants delivers greater return to California in both
economic activity and employment than corresponding investment in natural gas equipment. Each dollar
spent on CSP contributes approximately $1.40 - $1.50 to California’s gross State product; each dollar spent
on natural gas plants contributes $0.90 - $1.00 to the gross State product.”63 This is because of the savings
accrued over the lifetime of the plant from not having to purchase natural gas from out of state to keep the
plant operating. During 2004, California imported 32 percent of its energy from other States or Canada.64
The use of CSP enables California to use an energy resource abundant within the State. This keeps more
money in the State and helps strengthen its economy. Adding CSP also diversifies its sources of energy,
lessening its reliance on any one source. The California report also references a study that indicates that
decreasing the demand for natural gas (e.g., by using CSP) reduces its price to the benefit of all natural gas
consumers.65
AT: Feed In Tariff CP – Unpopular

Feed in tariffs anger voters
Wang 08 U.S. Proposes Feed-In Tariffs by: Ucilia Wang June 27, 2008
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/us-proposes-feed-in-tarrifs-1061.html
One downside of the feed-in tariffs is the higher energy bills that German consumers have had to pay.
After all, the utilities have no interest in absorbing all the cost of the government mandate. Would
Americans be wiling to pay more for energy? That’s unlikely, said Ethan Zindler, an analyst with New
Energy Finance. “It’s an election year. At the end of the day, somebody has to pay for feed-in program.
If it’s consumers, then utilities might find it difficult to signing on,” Zindler said.
AT: Tax Credit CP – Solvency Turn
Tax credits create artificial demand that distorts markets

DePalma, 2008, Orthopedic Surgeon and College Professor (Anthony, The New York Times, “New Jersey
Dealing With Solar Policy’s Success,” June 25, 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/nyregion/25solar.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&em&en=5b16cb8ce2e
51720&ex=1214539200, July 8, 2008)
With oil prices skyrocketing, demand for solar power is booming. And New Jersey, which has used a
rebate program to help install more solar panels than any other state but California, is getting burned
by its own success. There is a backlog of more than 700 applications for the rebates, and property owners
have to wait months, even years, to get solar panels installed. The program, which is paid for by surcharges on all
utility bills, has been shut down several times over the last three years because applications far outpaced rebate money. Some solar
installation companies have had to lay off workers while they waited for rebate checks to be sent. All this
has convinced New Jersey regulators that it is time to wean solar energy from public subsidies
altogether. The state plans to replace rebates with energy credits that can be bought and sold on the
open market. As it works out the details of the transition, New Jersey — not the place most people associate with solar innovations — finds itself at
the forefront of a growing national debate about the role of government in helping stimulate this sector of the energy economy. New York, Colorado,
Maryland and several other states with incentive programs are considering whether to scale back public subsidies so solar power can compete more
extensively in an open market. And they are confronting another difficult question: Is that best done by turning to a few large companies, or sticking with
smaller businesses that can create more local jobs? “Obviously, big systems get us to our goals much faster, but we want everybody to participate,” said
Jeanne M. Fox, president of New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities, which proposed the changes and is expected to give them final approval next month.
Ms. Fox said she believes it will be possible to phase out rebates, create a secure market for trading energy credits, welcome large solar system operators
and still protect many — if not all — small installers. But some of those smaller operators think the proposed transition will replace a proven success with
an untested experiment from which they — the entrepreneurs who started the solar boom with the help of rebates — will be excluded. “The state wants to
build a market to suit big companies that have access to huge sources of capital,” said Bill Hoey, managing member of N.J. Solar Power L.L.C., a $10
million company. “They could just crush the mid- and small-size market.” At SunEdison, one of the largest installers in the state and the nation, Mark R.
Culpepper, the vice president for strategic marketing, enthusiastically supports New Jersey’s transition. He called it “a pretty normal market evolution” in
which “very small players will probably go away, while small to mid-sized companies will be acquired by others or go into specific niche markets where
they can specialize.” Similar conflicts are arising all over the country, but the battle is most clearly drawn in New Jersey, where state officials feel compelled
to act decisively. Under a state energy master plan, solar power should account for 2.12 percent of New Jersey’s electricity by 2020. But even though more
than 3,100 residential and commercial solar systems have been installed during the six years the state has offered rebates, they generate only 0.07 percent of
current energy needs. To reach even that, New Jersey has handed out more than $170 million in rebates. The Board of Public Utilities has estimated that if
rebate rates remained unchanged, it would cost nearly $11 billion to get to the 2020 goal. According to state calculations, that
would add about 7.5 percent to New Jersey electricity rates, which are already among the highest in the country. “We need to do things differently because
ratepayers can’t keep paying for rebates indefinitely,” Ms. Fox said. Rebates, which have averaged $20,000 for residential projects and more than $1 million
for large commercial installations, would virtually end this year under the state’s plan. A limited number for small residential projects producing less than 10
kilowatts would be phased out over the next four years. In their place, the state would turn to a program it started several years ago that issues energy
credits. The concept is simple: Solar projects generate energy credits every year, and the state requires utility companies like PSE&G to buy them to offset
carbon emissions from their power plants and to help meet renewable-energy targets. By purchasing credits, the utilities do not actually generate solar
power, but they offset the cost of installing and operating solar equipment. New Jersey plans to greatly expand the program by allowing the credits to be
bought and sold like commodities, with long-term contracts and prices set by the open market. Regulators say that will be fairer to ratepayers and help the
state reach its renewable-energy goals faster. They also say the plan provides safeguards for small installers and ensures competition by prohibiting any
company from capturing more than 20 percent of a utility’s yearly credits. But the small companies fear that large businesses are poised to take particular
advantage of the credit system. Being bigger, they can handle more credits, cover more long-term commitments and secure more advantageous financing
than mom-and-pop operations. SunEdison, based in Maryland, has already made inroads in New Jersey using a new approach — called power purchase
agreements — that smaller companies do not have the capital to duplicate. Under those agreements, which the state first allowed in 2004, property owners
do not have to buy or operate their solar projects, or handle the sale of energy credits. Instead, they avoid all up-front costs by contracting with SunEdison or
other large companies, and bill property owners at fixed rates that are lower than utility company rates. SunEdison has put up more than 22 solar systems in
New Jersey, along with dozens in others states, mostly for large retail companies like Kohl’s. Experts say these purchase agreements can promote the move
to solar power. And regulators hope that a vibrant market for energy credits will speed that growth to the point where solar power can compete with
president of Advanced Solar Products, in Hopewell, N.J., and
conventionally generated electricity. But Lyle K. Rawlings,
vice president of the Mid-Atlantic Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group, said those
attempts to make the solar market more competitive could backfire, actually hindering competition by squeezing out
smaller companies. He said that the state’s proposed safeguards did not go nearly far enough. While a portion of new projects would be subject for a few
years to caps on how many credits one company can control, he said, those caps would not apply to existing solar installations. “The model they’re creating
is overcomplicated, fraught with uncertainty and really doesn’t protect the small installers who’ve created this industry,” Mr. Rawlings said. He said his own
company had laid off 4 of its 15 workers in the last few months, and several New Jersey solar companies had gone out of business. “This is going to lead to
a kind of unhealthy market concentration and chaos, like what’s already happened in other states.” Blake Jones, president of Namaste Solar Electric, in
Boulder, Colo., and a board member of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, said his state was considering changes similar to New Jersey’s.
He said a major goal of solar incentive programs is creating green jobs. “On a per-kilowatt basis, more jobs, more local business and more rural economic
development is created by small projects and small businesses than medium or large ones,” he said. In Maryland, installers hope to persuade regulators to
raise the value of energy credits in order to provide more income for small companies. New York is several steps behind the other states in developing its
solar market because of regulations that have limited solar installations to small-scale residential projects. Installers there are watching what happens in New
Jersey because they expect to enter a similar debate in the next few years.
AT: Cap K – Solar Solves Poverty

Solar power can extend the energy grid to rural areas with no power, solving energy
shortages in poor areas
Poston, 2008 (Leslie, Free Access Magazine, April 7,
http://www.freeaccess.com.au/Structure:%20/2008/04/07/solar-power-now-cheaper-than-fossil-fuel/)
Solar power is now proving itself as a legitimate contender in the utilities game, making traditional utilities
nervous. The United Kingdom predicts that solar power will be able to compete with mainstream commercial
utilities like oil and gas within five years. The prediction is that solar will become competitively priced even
in countries like Scandinavia where utilities are traditionally higher. The newest technology is the solar film.
Current solar panels cost so much to make that it makes the cost far too high to become mainstream
technology. Solar film is made from a dark polymer foil that is much lighter than a sheet of paper. The
lightness factor means that you can attach the solar film to the sides of buildings, instead of mandating heavy
roof support for heavier solar panels. Using the solar film means that customers will be able to customize
their order for solar power by color and texture, and buy it at more reasonable prices in sheets. By being able
to print solar film in rolls you save on the costs of manufacturing special glass and using pricey chemicals
inside each panel. The technology is still under development, but it should be available for mass use in the
very near future. It is being developed by a company called Filsom. The film creates power by absorbing
light and using it to free electrons. These electrons then give power to the buildings the film is attached to
once they are hooked into the power source. This technology could not only reduce the cost of power over
all, it could bring power to remote villages and other locales that currently aren’t able to be on the national
grids.
AT: Ecofem – Generic

Eco-feminists support solar
Passehl, 04 ( Erin, “Twin Oaks Community: Women’s Liberation, Generational Divide, and the Evolution of
Women’s Culture”, http://uwho.rso.wisc.edu/Archive/Erin%20Passehl.pdf, accessed on 7/9/08)
The feminist agenda outlined by Valerie included a new marketing campaign to “attract feminist
women interested in promoting a female-friendly environment.” Twin Oaks became known as a
‘feminist ecovillage’ on its website in the year 2001. Twin Oaks adopted this buzzword to connect with
other alternative and sustainable groups with similar attributes such as the promotion of solar power
and sustainable building practices. Three communities (Twin Oaks, Dancing Rabbit, and Earth Haven) came
together and formed the feminist ecovillage project. All three groups displayed advertisements, posters, and
maintained the web page to advertise to eco-sensitive women. Valerie believed it was important to label the
communities as feminist because of the importance this new generation of women placed on gender roles.

Solar Power Aff - Maurer

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

Solar Power Aff - Maurer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Solar Power Aff

Index – Federal Land Solar Aff

1AC – Economy Advantage

The plan solves jump starts the economy 4 ways:

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE….

1AC – Economy Advantage

CONTINUED FROM LAST PAGE….

1AC – Economy Advantage

1AC – Economy Advantage

1AC – Economy Advantage

1AC – Pollution Advantage

Power plants main source of air pollution

Inherency – No Fed Solar Now

Inherency – Solar not competitive now

Environmental regulations prevent solar development

Inherency – CSP not cost-efficient yet

Inherency – FF Increasing Now

Inherency – FF Increasing Now

Demand for energy will grow and be met by fossil fuels

Fossil fuel sources will dominate future energy needs

Solvency – Alternate Mech

Solvency – Global Warming/FF Dependence

Solvency – Global Warming/FF Dependence

CSP best way to replace carbon-producing energies

Solvency – Global Warming/FF Dependence

Solar energy helps conserve fossil fuels

CSP in US can replace 90% of fossil fuels

Solvency – Global Warming/FF Dependence

Incentives key to solar power

Solvency – Wind Trade-0ff

Solvency – Tech Ready

CSP easily deployed by utilities- same as traditional power plants

Technology Ready for CSP generation

Solvency – Energy Grid

Solvency – Federal Action Key

The US government is key to sustaining investor confidence in solar energy

Access to federal lands key to solar industry

Solvency – Federal Action Key

Public lands have high potential for energy production

Federal lands best available for solar power

Solvency – Federal Action Key

Federal lands key

Solvency – Federal Action Key

Solvency – Now Key

Solvency – Fast Time Frame

Solvency – Energy Prices

Widespread adoption of CSP will drive down costs

Solvency – Energy Prices

Increasing CSP energy output drops energy prices

Solvency – Energy Prices

Solvency – Environmental Impact Statement key

EIS key to ecosystems and solar industry – CSP passes EIS

Solvency – Natural Gas

Solar technologies are improving to be more eco friendly

Solar energy is environmentally friendly

Environmental disaster impacts are overexaggerated

Federal lands key to energy diversity and protection of wildlife

Concentrated Solar Power Produces no Harmful Emissions

Less than 5% of Desert Lands Ever Needed

No risk of habitat destruction

CSP solves air pollution

Solvency – AT: Not Cost Competitive

Solvency – AT: Not Cost Competitive