Docstoc

Nuclear Power Aff

Document Sample
Nuclear Power Aff Powered By Docstoc
					JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                                        Nuclear Power Aff
1AC (1/9) .................................................................................2   Answers To On-Case Arguments ....................................... 30
1AC (2/9) .................................................................................3   AT: Department of Energy Bad ............................................. 30
1AC (3/9) .................................................................................4   AT: Long Time Frame ........................................................... 31
1AC (4/9) .................................................................................5   AT: Accidents/Meltdowns ..................................................... 32
1AC (5/9) .................................................................................6   AT: Accidents/Meltdowns ..................................................... 33
1AC (6/9) .................................................................................7   AT: Terrorist Attacks............................................................. 34
1AC (7/9) .................................................................................8   AT: Nuclear Waste ................................................................ 35
1AC (8/9) .................................................................................9   AT: Uranium Shortages ......................................................... 36
                                                                                               AT: Yucca Bad ...................................................................... 37
Inherency Extensions ........................................................... 10            AT: Proliferation.................................................................... 38
Inherency Extensions- AT: EPACT ....................................... 11                     AT: Short Life Span .............................................................. 39
Inherency Extensions- No Expansion Now ........................... 12                          AT: Defaults .......................................................................... 40
                                                                                               AT: Not-In-My-Back-Yard ................................................... 41
Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key*..................... 13                               AT: Coal Good ...................................................................... 42
Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key* ........................ 14
Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key* ........................ 15                           Answers to Off-Case Arguments ........................................ 43
Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key* ........................ 16                           Disadvantages ........................................................................ 43
                                                                                               Agenda Bad 2AC- Link Turns ............................................... 43
Economy Advantage ............................................................ 17              Agenda Bad 2AC- Link Turns ............................................... 44
Nuclear Power Key to Econ- Jobs ......................................... 17                   Agenda Good 2AC- Link Turns ............................................ 45
*CO2 Regulations Internal Link ............................................ 18                 Agenda Good 2AC- Link Turns ............................................ 46
Ext- Nuclear Power Solves CO2 Regs ................................... 19                      Elections 2AC- Plan Popular ................................................. 47
*Prices Internal Link .............................................................. 20        Elections 2AC- Plan Unpopular ............................................ 48
Ext- Nuclear Power Key Low Prices ..................................... 21                     AT: Obama Solves the Aff .................................................... 49
Ext- Nuclear Power Key Low Prices ..................................... 22                     Biz Con 2AC ......................................................................... 50
AT: High Uranium Prices ...................................................... 23              Spending 2AC/Coercion ........................................................ 51
AT: Enough Nuclear Power Now .......................................... 24                     Ext- No Default Risk ............................................................. 52

Warming Advantage ............................................................ 25              Counterplans .......................................................................... 53
Nuclear Power Solves Warming ............................................ 25                   States Counterplan 2AC ........................................................ 53
                                                                                               States Counterplan 2AC ........................................................ 54
Energy Independence Add-On ........................................... 26                      Free Market Counterplan 2AC .............................................. 55
Ext- Nuclear Power Solves Energy Independence ................. 27                             Free Market Counterplan 2AC .............................................. 56
Ext- Energy Independence Solves Terrorism ........................ 28                          Carbon Tax CP 2AC .............................................................. 57
                                                                                               Regulations Counterplan 2AC ............................................... 58
Coal Add-On ........................................................................ 29
                                                                                               Nuclear Kritik 2AC ............................................................... 59

                                                                                               AT: T Alternative Energy ...................................................... 60
                                                                                               Ext- Nuclear Power is Alternative Energy............................. 61
                                                                                               AT: T Incentives .................................................................... 62




                                                                                                                                                                                       1
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                                          1AC (1/9)
Contention I: Inherency

( ) First, there aren’t enough federal loan guarantees- an increase is key to getting nuclear power off the
ground
Williams 08 (Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires, UPDATE:US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-
NRC, Mar. 10, 2008, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm)
The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next
generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said
Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies
from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said
Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing
would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years
of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave
of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's
been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG). "But once we demonstrate that,
we should be able to finance the next wave with commercial loans," Wallace told Dow Jones Newswires on the sidelines of a utilities conference. Constellation Energy
hopes to break ground on a new nuclear power reactor at its Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland at the end of this year following a final decision in November. The
company plans for the 1.6-gigawatt reactor to come on line in 2015. To date, the NRC has received five complete applications and one partial application for licenses
to operate and construct a nuclear power plant, Jaczko said. He expects to receive 17 applications for 30 nuclear power reactors with around 45 GW of capacity over the
next two to three years. It's not yet clear how many licenses will be approved, Jaczko said. Some construction, such as site clearing, can begin before a company
receives a license, he added. The NRC is likely to settle on three new reactor designs out of the five it is currently evaluating so as to simplify the licensing process and
encourage standardization across the industry, he said. Nuclear power is on the verge of a revival in the U.S. due to efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,
reversing three decades of stagnation following the 1979 disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Last September, NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) became the
first company in 30 years to file an application to build new nuclear power plants. Jaczko said around 50 new nuclear reactors would be needed to
replace the country's aging plants and keep the amount of electricity produced from nuclear steady at 20%.

( ) Second, despite renewed interest, many utilities won’t be able to follow through because of financial
risk
CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, ―Nuclear Power‘s Role in Generating Electricity,‖ May 2008,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf)
Over the past few years, most likely in response to both the prospect of carbon dioxide charges and the incentives offered in EPAct,
several utilities have begun planning new nuclear projects, which may signal the end of a 30-year hiatus in financing the construction
of nuclear power plants. As of 2007, over a dozen utilities had announced their intention to file construction and operating licenses
(COLs), which are obtained through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for roughly 30 nuclear plants.7 Those plants would
provide about40,000 megawatts of new capacity.8 For perspective, the roughly 100,000 megawatts of existing nuclear capacity
currently provides about 20 percent of all electrical power in the United States. Although the announcements reflect renewed interest
in building new nuclear power plants, they do not indicate how much capacity utilities will ultimately build. Completing the revised
design and licensing process isexpected to cost about $100 million per plant, less than 5 percent of the anticipated cost for constructing
a nuclear plant. Filing a COL application by the end of 2008 may be necessary for those projects to remain eligible for a share of the
$7.5 billion (in nominal dollars) in production tax credits, but filing does not obligate an applicant to build the proposed plant.




                                                                                                                                                                           2
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                            1AC (2/9)

Plan: The United States federal government should eliminate the cap on loan guarantees intended for
advanced nuclear technologies.




                                                                                                      3
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                                     1AC (3/9)
Contention II: Harms

Scenario I: The Economy

( ) First, expanding nuclear energy key to job creation and the economy
NAM 08 (National Association of Manufacturers, Expanding Nuclear Capacity Will Create High-Wage Jobs, Says NAM, Jun. 17,
2008, http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/545823)
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) said today that expanding America's nuclear capacity is critical to creating
essential, high-wage U.S. manufacturing jobs and will help meet the nation's growing energy demand. "Nuclear energy is a clean,
reliable source of power that has the potential to create thousands of high-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs," said NAM President and
CEO John Engler at a news conference today with the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition) to release a new white
paper, titled Job Creation in the Nuclear Renaissance, which examines the job growth potential for existing and future nuclear power
plants in the next decade. "The United States has not built a nuclear plant in decades. The technical knowledge to construct and operate plants and to design and
manufacture key nuclear components is retiring with the baby boomers -- and America does not have the necessary skilled workers to replace them. A nuclear
                                                                                                                                to
renaissance can not happen without robust investment in the education and training of America's current and future workforce," he said. "We must continue
support the expansion of nuclear energy to maintain jobs and economic growth in America. A robust economy demands more energy,
even as we pursue alternative means such as conservation and efficiency. Failure to supply those increased energy demands will raise
energy costs for manufacturers and consumers and hurt our global competitiveness," he said. "It is imperative that industry,
government and educators join together to support the growth of nuclear energy to stimulate America's economy, protect our
environment and create good jobs here at home," Engler concluded.

( ) Second, the US economy is key to the global economy
Associated Press 08 (―Sober IMF forecast for U.S. and global economies‖, April 10th, Lexis)
The United States is headed for a recession, dragging world economic growth down along with it, the International Monetary Fund
concluded in a sobering forecast yesterday that underscored the damage inflicted by the housing and credit debacles. The IMF's World
Economic Outlook served as a reminder of just how swiftly economic fortunes in the United States and beyond can unravel, affecting
people, investors and businesses around the globe. The fund slashed growth projections for the United States - the epicenter of the
woes - and for the world economy. The fragile state of affairs greatly raises the odds that the global economy could fall into a slump,
the IMF said. Financial problems that erupted in August 2007 "spread quickly and unpredictably" and caused "extensive damage," the
IMF said.

( ) Third, this leads to global nuclear war
Mead 92 (Walter Russell, Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p. 28)
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.




                                                                                                                                                               4
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                           1AC (4/9)
Scenario II: Global Warming

( ) Nuclear power is key to solving global warming- It’s comparatively better than any other energy
source
Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, How green is nuclear power?, Mar. 7, 2007,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html)
But that carbon-free pitch has researchers asking anew: How carbon-free is nuclear power? And how cost-effective is it in the fight to
slow global warming? "Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt,
Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest,
scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch." Nuclear power has more than just a little
greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included.
A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says. That's
still much less than coal-fired power plants and natural-gas turbines. It even does better than solar power and small-scale hydro
projects. However, the gap with solar is closing and emissions from manufacturing photovoltaic panels are now on par with nuclear, a
new study funded by the US Energy Department finds. Officials in the nuclear power industry say references to carbon-free energy in
their promotions refer only to the power-plant operation – and are not intended to describe carbon emissions during the entire nuclear
life cycle. "Yes, absolutely there's carbon," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which
represents the nuclear power industry in the US. "Most studies have found life-cycle emissions of nuclear to be comparable with
renewable. Some show nuclear to be extremely high, but we do not find those credible." Neither do many researchers. A 2003
Massachusetts Institute of Technology study recommended vast expansion of nuclear power to make a dent in the climate-
change problem. Princeton researchers also cited it as an option, although they acknowledged concerns about terror threats and
potential accidents. One University of Wisconsin life-cycle emissions study in 2003 found even lower carbon emissions for nuclear
than for most renewables. "We found wind and nuclear fission to have the lowest greenhouse-gas emissions over their life-cycle," says
Paul Meier, director of the energy institute at the university. "We didn't include biomass and some of the others now available." Yet
it's not so much nuclear's carbon emissions, which are still relatively modest, but its cost-effectiveness in reducing carbon-dioxide
emissions globally that's the key question, researchers say. Few studies have addressed that question.

( ) Global warming causes extinction
Henderson 06 (Bill Henderson, Runaway Global Warming – Denial, Aug. 19, 2006, http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-
henderson190806.htm)
The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public -
still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting
ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If
impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the
atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several
million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share. Runaway global
warming: there are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils, carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a drought struck Amazon,
methane in Arctic peat bogs and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. For several decades it has been hypothesized
that rising temperatures from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels could be releasing some of and
eventually all of these stored carbon stocks to add substantually more potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.. Given time lags of
30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bombs
exploding, their released greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of
degrees higher than our norms of human habitation and therefor extinction or very near extinction of humanity.




                                                                                                                                       5
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                                         1AC (5/9)
( ) Nuclear’s role in solving warming outweighs any potential downfalls- Global warming is too big of a
challenge to ignore
Rogers 07 (Jim Rogers is the chairman of the board, the president and the chief executive officer at Duke Energy, ―Council on
Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for
Nuclear Energy?‖ Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)
So I would summarize by saying, if we're serious about climate we got to get serious about nuclear. And we got to have a national
conversation about whether it's proliferation or safety or spent fuel. We need to say: What do we value more? What is the greatest challenge going forward? And I say
that to you as somebody that's thought hard about this issue. I've been very involved with the U.N. Foundation and the Club of Madrid, starting to think about what the
framework ought to be post-Kyoto. And I personally believe that while the challenge is great for the United States, it's even greater for the world. We have 2 billion
people -- and I think I heard that number last night -- but we're projecting to have 1.4 billion by 2030 that will not have access to electricity. And you know, if -- and
that's access to the modern world; that's access to computers. And you know what? It would be wrong for us to deny them any more than they've been denied access.
So on the one hand we're dealing with that, at the same time many countries are calling for a 50 percent reduction of CO2 in the world below current levels, some below
1990 levels.      And so this task of addressing climate is enormous. And whatever our conventional wisdoms have been about nuclear, if
we're serious about climate, we'll need to revisit those conventional wisdoms and see if we can find a new way to think about it, a new
way to deliver it. And that is really going to be critical, because I think the number one challenge in the world is not the proliferation
safety issues or the storage issues around nuclear, I think the number one challenge is climate. And I think if we're serious about
making a dent in that and going after it so we don't move from mitigation to adaptation, if we want to minimize how much adaptation
that we have to do around the world, and recognizing that it's the poorest countries that are going to be most affected by climate
change, we need to look at those higher values and those higher goals and revisit this issue in that context.




                                                                                                                                                                        6
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                           1AC (6/9)
Contention III: Solvency

( ) Increasing the amount of loan guarantees for nuclear power are crucial to expansion, which solves for
warming and the economy
Miller 07 (William H. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the
University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor, Financing the next generation of nuclear
power plants, Sept. 23, 2007, http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.pdf)
Nuclear power, with global warming and energy security at stake, needs $5 billion in government loan guarantees for each of the first
few nuclear power plants to be built in the United States. Providing this credit support would help prevent greater costs down the road
— in response to electricity shortages, ever-increasing reliance on imported oil and environmental harm from the emissions of fossil-
fuel plants. Notwithstanding charges by anti-nuclear groups like Greenpeace and Public Citizen that loan guarantees are a subsidy to
the nuclear industry, the guarantees, if managed properly, will cost taxpayers nothing. The loan-guarantee program is designed to be
self-financing, with companies responsible for paying an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. The benefits from
loan guarantees would be huge. To meet growing demand for clean energy, 17 electrical companies are gearing up to build 33
nuclear power plants using standardized designs and advanced technology. Although improvements have been made in the reactor
licensing process and project management to eliminate unnecessary delays, the first few plants will cost more than the rest, because it
has been many years since construction of a nuclear plant in the United States, and the companies that build the first new plants will
face extra expenses that subsequent companies will not have to bear. For example, there are "first-of-a-kind" design and engineering
costs. And there is no absolute assurance that hitches in licensing and construction might not happen, causing project costs to rise,
much as they did when today's nuclear plants were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Recognizing this, Congress in the 2005 Energy
Policy Act authorized guarantees to new nuclear plants to provide some extra surety. Without loan guarantees, banks would not
provide companies with the low-cost financing they need. The guarantees will enable nuclear plant operators to obtain financing at
favorable rates. This directly benefits consumers because it will save about a third of the cost of electricity from a new plant. Nuclear
power, however, will have to compete for the same loan guarantees with other clean-energy technologies, including methods for
sequestering carbon emissions from coal plants, designing more fuel-efficient vehicles and using switch grass and other cellulosic
sources to make ethanol.

( ) Investors won’t loan any money without federal loan guarantees
THE EXAMINER 2007 ("Federal loan guarantees for nuclear development should help Constellation Energy, investors", 10/8;
http://www.examiner.com/a-
977304~Federal_loan_guarantees_for_nuclear_development_should_help_Constellation_Energy__investors.html)
Power companies have tentative plans to put the 28 new reactors at 19 sites around the country. Industry executives insist that banks
and Wall Street will not provide the money needed to build new reactors unless the loans are guaranteed in their entirety by the federal
government. The federal government guarantees many billions of loans each year to help farmers, exporters, small businesses and
students. The government does not actually lend the money but agrees to pay it back in case the borrower defaults. While the nuclear
industry says it will need $25 billion in loan guarantees in 2008 and $50 billion over the next two years, President Bush had proposed
a far smaller amount — $4 billion — in new loan guarantees next year for "clean" electric power technologies, which include plants
that run on so-called clean coal technologies and renewable fuels.




                                                                                                                                        7
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                                        1AC (7/9)
( ) Loan guarantees are absolutely critical- nuclear energy is more reliable, safe and effective than any
other renewable source
Adams 08 (Theodore G. Adams is a health physicist, Federal loan guarantees key to nuclear plant construction, June 8, 2008,
http://www.buffalonews.com/367/story/365369.html)
With America‘s greenhouse-gas emissions increasing daily, it is time to stimulate the use of nuclear energy. Only then will we be able
to deal with the challenges of atmospheric pollution and climate change, while meeting our nation‘s growing need for electricity.
Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States, but few, if any, are likely to get
beyond the drawing- board stage until the government provides loan guarantees. Because high up-front costs have made nuclear plant
construction potentially risky, Wall Street investors say federal loan guarantees are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from
intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the construction of new plants, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has approved several plant sites, certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear plant construction
proceeds pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago approved loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants.
But it conditioned the loan guarantees on being awarded no later than 2009 and then only to companies possessing a joint license to construct and operate a new nuclear
plant. Since no company has yet to obtain such a license from the commission and the 2009 window is fast closing, the deadline for eligibility should be extended. The
Bush administration and Congress need to take prompt action. Since nuclear power accounts for more than 70 percent of carbon-free
electricity generation in the United States, not to increase its use would be folly. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. And it‘s produced
here in this country, free of foreign interference. Some environmental groups claim that renewable energy sources can meet our needs
and that nuclear power is no longer necessary. But renewable sources like solar and wind, while part of the answer to global warming,
cannot provide the large amounts of base-load electricity needed to drive our economy. Solar panels and wind turbines generate power
only intermittently, requiring back-up energy from fossil fuels. Although strongly supported and promoted by the federal government
and many states, solar and wind combined provide only 3 percent of the nation‘s electricity, compared to 52 percent from coal and 20
percent from nuclear power. With electricity demand on the upswing, record amounts of coal and natural gas being burned and
scientists warning about the potentially devastating impact of global warming, we are headed for a perfect storm. It is encouraging that the
presidential candidates recognize the need to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Sen. John McCain is principal author of legislation, introduced last year, that seeks to
cut emissions to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A longtime supporter of nuclear power, McCain said on the Senate floor that the measure proposes ―adding new
reactor designs for nuclear power.‖ He said, ―The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our future energy mix is an unsustainable position. At a minimum we
must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy‘s level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.‖ The legislation calls for
federal funding to develop clean-energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants. Among the bill‘s co-sponsors are Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
By all measures, there has been a significant improvement in nuclear safety since the 1970s. Industrial and nuclear safety records are
consistently better than ever in more than four decades of operation. Unplanned automatic plant shutdowns, workplace accident rate,
collective radiation exposure and other indices of plant safety continue to meet tough goals set by the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations. And spent fuel is being stored safely and securely at nuclear plant sites, while work proceeds on developing a permanent
repository for nuclear waste in Nevada. The upshot is that the cost of producing nuclear- generated electricity is less than electricity
coming from fossil-fuel plants. Last year, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 104 U. S. nuclear plants produced electricity,
on average, at a cost of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). By comparison, electricity cost 2.3 cents per kwh from coal-fueled plants,
6.7 cents per kwh from natural gas plants, and 9.6 cents per kwh from oil plants. It is expected that new nuclear plants will have even
lower production costs given improved designs that should cost less to operate and maintain. What will it take to build the next
nuclear plant? In short, some insurance in the form of loan guarantees to cover the potential cost and schedule impacts of new plant
construction. Now is the time to move forward with nuclear power. It‘s the key to our energy security and environmental well-being.




                                                                                                                                                                       8
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                          1AC (8/9)
( ) Regulations empirically crush nuclear power- federal incentives are better
Spencer 07 (Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm)
Private investors have a key role to play in rees-tablishing America's nuclear industry. The industry is no longer owned or supported
by the govern-ment, although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 does provide some incentives to utilities. In general, pri-vate investors
provide the capital and take the risks necessary to develop the nuclear industry. The gov-ernment's role should be to ensure safety and
allow the industry--just like any other--to compete and flourish in open markets. The heavy regulatory burden imposed on the nuclear
industry creates enduring uncertainties about the future of nuclear power in the United States. While a strong public commitment does
provide some near-term certainty, it still is accom-panied by regulatory and investment uncertainty. This does little for the long-term
planning inher-ent in nuclear energy, which results in higher risk assessments for America's energy companies.




                                                                                                                                      9
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                               Inherency Extensions
( ) The current cap on loan guarantees makes them functionally meaningless
Krause and Higgins 08 (REINHARDT KRAUSE AND SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, New Nuclear Plants
Are On Their Way, With Federal Help, June 20, 2008,
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20080620)
With $18.5 billion up for grabs, the Energy Department's loan guarantee program is expected to restart building nuclear plants in the
U.S. after a three-decade hiatus. However, the nuclear industry's resurgence could be short-lived. The $18.5 billion may be enough to
partially fund only three or four nuclear plants, analysts say. About a dozen proposals are expected to vie for the financing. The DOE
will begin the review process later this summer. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects up to 21 applications by year-end to
build 32 reactors. The presidential election may be key to nuclear's revival. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending
loan guarantees. Republican John McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. With banks short of capital, the availability of low-
interest rate government credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants. They take 4-5 years to build — though the approval
process can be far longer — and cost billions of dollars each. Costs vary depending on how much electricity the power plants
generate. "The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10 billion to build one plant," said Robert Hornick, a senior
director at credit rater Fitch. "So you can see how the federal loan guarantee program, with $18.5 billion, doesn't get you too far."

( ) The December 2007 loan guarantees were laughably small-only 18.5 billion
White House Fact Sheet 08 (Investment in Renewable and Alternative Energy Technologies, Mar. 5, 2008,
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/March/20080305175150xjsnommis0.5022394.html)
In December, President Bush signed into law new loan guarantee authorities to support alternative energy sources. The new authority
would allow additional loan guarantees of up to $38.5 billion, of which $18.5 billion in loan guarantees will support construction of
new plants and enable nuclear plant owners to reduce their interest costs. $10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable
and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution. This loan
guarantee authority also includes: $6 million for coal-based power generation and industrial gasification activities at retrofitted and
new facilities that incorporate carbon capture and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon; $2 million for advanced coal
gasification; and $2 million for advanced nuclear facilities for the "front-end" of the nuclear fuel cycle.

( ) Current loan guarantee levels are capped at 18.5 billion- only one or two facilities could be built
UCS 07 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees Shrivel, Dec. 18, 2007,
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1218-13.htm)
The nuclear industry is touting the passage of the omnibus appropriations bill as a victory, but in fact Congress did not rally behind
loan guarantees for nuclear power. The industry was lobbying for $50 billion in loan guarantees to attract reluctant Wall Street
investors. It didn't get it. When the budget-battle dust settled, Congress officially gave nuclear little to crow about. The only
indication that lawmakers support loan guarantees for particular energy sources is in a paragraph-long "report" that accompanied the
omnibus bill. This nonbinding paragraph spelled out the limit for loan guarantees for various energy sources. It set a ceiling of $38.5
billion, with capped amounts of $18.5 billion for new nuclear reactors, $2 billion for new nuclear fuel uranium enrichment facilities,
$6 billion for coal-based power generation with carbon capture and storage, $2 billion for coal gasification, and $10 billion for
renewable energy development. Significantly, the funding levels in the report "are recommended obligation levels and not an
appropriation of funds," Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) wrote in a December 17 "dear colleague" letter. Visclosky is chairman of the
House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. In his letter, the congressman pointed out that the omnibus bill merely
restated 2005 energy legislation provisions, which require the Department of Energy to obtain approval from the House
Appropriations Committee for any plan to solicit loan guarantee applications. Given the projected costs of building new reactors, the
measure is hardly a victory for the nuclear industry. Cost estimates have escalated to as much as $12 billion to $18 billion for the kind
of twin unit facilities most utility applicants favor. Under this recommended program, a successful nuclear loan guarantee applicant
could do little more than fund one or two projects.




                                                                                                                                      10
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                           Inherency Extensions- AT: EPACT
( ) The Energy Policy Act didn’t give nearly enough in loan guarantees
Rogers 07 (Jim Rogers is the chairman of the board, the president and the chief executive officer at Duke Energy, ―Council on
Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for
Nuclear Energy?‖ Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)
We talked a few moments about the Federal Loan Guarantee Program, and in our -- a coincidence, I met with Chris Weiss (sp) shortly before this
meeting, and they actually handed me a sheet of paper that said nothing would be financed under this program in terms of the way it's structured. And I won't get into
the technical details of how it's structured, but they basically say that it will lead to project financing. And they go through a very detailed explanation. And they say,
"And by the way, the dollars that are going to be allocated under the 2005 allocation is really quite de minimis , and it's 4 billion (dollars) for all power
facilities, not just for nuclear." So that's not even a drop in the bucket in terms -- if you think about for nuclear to have the same share
today in 2030, we have to build 35 nuclear plants between now and 2030. This 4, 5 billion, it's nothing. It's trivial. Has no policy
implications whatsoever. It has no impact on the real world. It's symbolic. It really says we're not serious about advancing this option, or we'd do something better than that.
I basically have taken the position publicly I will not build a nuclear plant unless I have the ability to get financing costs during that period of time of the construction.



( ) Current loan guarantees will only cover 2-6 nuclear plants
Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535)
NRG's application is driven by a section of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that allows the U.S. Secretary of Energy to pay up to 100
percent of covered costs to a power company whose nuclear facilities have been approved for construction but are then delayed by
litigation or other circumstances deemed beyond the control of the operator. However, such coverage will be extended only to the
first two nuclear plants to be licensed and under construction. The next four will be eligible for protection amounting to 50 percent of
the covered costs, up to $250 million. The law contains no provisions for similar protection for other new reactors.

( ) EPACT wasn’t enough- it’ll become less useful as time goes on
WNN 08 (World Nuclear News, Carbon charges make nuclear cheapest choice, May 6, 2008, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-
Carbon_charges_make_nuclear_cheapest_choice-0605086.html)
EPA incentives would make nuclear technology competitive for new baseload capacity even in the absence of CO2 charges, but CBO
warned that because of the fixed amount of funding behind some such incentives their impact would be diluted as the number of
nuclear projects increased. "CBO anticipates that only a few of the 30 plants currently being proposed [in the USA] would be built if
utilities did not expect carbon dioxide charges to be imposed," the report cautions.

( ) Current loan guarantees are too limited and may not even apply to nuclear power
Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, ―Nuclear Energy Policy,‖ July 12, 2007,
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)
EPACT05 also authorized federal loan guarantees for up to 80% of construction costs for advanced energy projects that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, including new nuclear power plants. The EPACT loan guarantees are widely considered crucial by the
nuclear industry to obtain financing for new reactors. DOE issued guidelines for the initial round of loan guarantees on August 8,
2006. However, the initial round is limited to $2 billion and does not include nuclear power plants. The FY2007 continuing resolution (P.L.
110-5) provided initial administrative funding for the program and authorized up to $4 billion in loan guarantees (twice the Administration request), but it also
prohibited DOE from awarding loan guarantees until final rules were in place. DOE issued proposed rules for the program May 16, 2007 (72 FR 27471). DOE‘s
proposed loan guarantee rules have been sharply criticized by the nuclear industry for limiting the guarantees to 90% of a project‘s
debt. The industry contends that EPACT05 would allow all of a project‘s debt to be covered, as long as debt did not exceed 80% of total construction costs. In its
explanation of the proposed rules, DOE expressed concern that guaranteeing 100% of a project‘s debt could reduce lenders‘ incentive to perform adequate due diligence
and therefore increase default risks. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $7 billion in loan guarantees for FY2008, which,
including the $4 billion ultimately provided for FY2007, would give DOE a cumulative authorization of $11 billion — $2 billion
above the Administration‘s requested cumulative level of $9 billion (H.R. 2641, H.Rept. 110-185). The FY2008 DOE budget
justification said that the precise allocation of the loan guarantees among nuclear, coal, renewable energy, and other eligible
technologies ―would depend on the merits and benefits of particular project proposals and their compliance with statutory and
regulatory requirements.‖ However, the House panel allocated $2 billion for coal, $4 billion for biofuels, and $1 billion for electric transmission and renewable
power systems, specifically omitting the Administration‘s mention of nuclear power. But because the $4 billion authorized in FY2007 is not allocated
among the various technologies, the effect of the proposed FY2008 allocation is uncertain. The Senate Appropriations Committee‘s
version of the bill does not cap the loan guarantee level or specify eligible technologies (S. 1751, S.Rept. 110-127).

                                                                                                                                                                                 11
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                           Inherency Extensions- No Expansion Now
( ) No new plants are being built now- construction costs are too high
Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, ―Nuclear Energy Policy,‖ July 12, 2007,
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)
The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation‘s electricity, faces an unclear long-term future.
No nuclear plants have been ordered in the United States since 1978, and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all
ordered after 1973. No new units are currently under active construction; the Tennessee Valley Authority‘s (TVA‘s) Watts Bar 1
reactor, ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996, was the most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power
industry‘s troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and
regulatory compliance costs. High construction costs are perhaps the most serious obstacle to nuclear power expansion. Construction
costs for reactors completed since the mid-1980s ranged from $2 to $6 billion, averaging more than $3,000 per kilowatt of electric
generating capacity (in 1997 dollars). The nuclear industry predicts that new plant designs could be built for less than that amount if
many identical plants were built in a series, but such economies of scale have yet to be demonstrated.




                                                                                                                                     12
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                         Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key*
( ) Lifting the cap on loan guarantees is crucial to a nuclear revival in the U.S.- Financing is the biggest
stumbling block to construction
Bhambhani 08 (Dipka Bhambhani, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, June 9, 2008, Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting
its impact on nuclear revival, LN)
Representatives of the Energy Department, Wall Street and industry told senators last week that DOE's $18.5 billion in loan
guarantees for new nuclear plants is not enough to substantially promote a revival of nuclear power in the US. In a roundtable
discussion, four senators were reminded that nuclear plants are capital-intensive and require utilities to spend tens of millions of
dollars to prepare to build the units. "These new nuclear plants are very high-cost ? capital-intensive plants that can't be financed on
individual companies' balance sheets," said Nuclear Energy Institute President Frank "Skip" Bowman. "I don't think Congress has
done everything in all respects to help promote this obvious need for new nuclear plants." Bowman said the cost of electricity is
increasing and the nuclear plants would help lower those expenses. Wall Street analysts told the lawmakers that investors are
uncomfortable financing such long-term projects that are subject to the whims of politics and regulatory change. Among the issues for
investors is DOE's loan-guarantee program. The program, a provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for the department to
cover up to 100% of a loan for a clean energy project, up to 80% of the cost of the entire project if the loan comes from the Federal
Financing Bank at the Treasury Department. DOE would cover up to 90% of the total cost of a loan that comes from another lending
institution. Under the program, DOE would act as a sort of cosigner to the financing. In April, DOE announced that it plans to
conduct solicitations this summer for advanced energy projects that may qualify for up to $38.5 billion in federal loan guarantees (IE,
14 April, 14). $18.5 billion of that amount is earmarked for nuclear plants, with another $2 billion for uranium-enrichment facilities.
In an interview after the roundtable, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon agreed that the $18.5 billion
would barely cover the construction of three nuclear plants. Spurgeon said, "for us to be able to put the amount of nuclear energy into
use that we believe is required in order for us to meet both energy needs and reduce our carbon emissions, requires many more nuclear
plants than can be supported by the current cap on loan guarantees." The Congress must appropriate more money or eliminate the
cap on the guarantees, the assistant secretary said. "The subsidy cost is paid by the applicants. Just like with the Export-Import Bank,
this is not something that, run properly, would cost the taxpayer a dime," Spurgeon said. No DOE solicitation yet DOE has not yet
issued a solicitation for new nuclear projects that would be financed through the loan guarantee program, and the department cannot
award the assistance to utilities until they file for a construction and operating license (COL) at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bowman said the loan guarantee program is "hamstrung" by the loan volume. He said of the nine applications for 15 plants currently
pending before NRC, only four to eight would be online by 2016. "Part of the reason is financing. But that $18.5 billion that's
available for nuclear, wouldn't even support that modest approach, that first wave of four to eight plants," Bowman said. Paul Farr,
PPL Corporation's chief financial officer, said "financing is the most significant aspect and most daunting prospect" in deciding to
build a nuclear plant, and even filing a COL.

( ) Loan guarantees are essential for nuclear power expansion
EnergyWashington Week 08 (NEI Touts Union Support, Newsroom Notes, May 16, 2008, LN)
The president of a major labor union--citing nuclear energy as a carbon-free technology--says the group's "primary mission" this
Congress is to win an expansion of the federal loan guarantee program for nuclear energy and other clean-energy technologies to help
"kick start" a resurgence of the nuclear industry, according to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) news release. Support for nuclear
power from a major Democratic constituency -- the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department -- is significant in light of
upcoming debates over federal climate change legislation. The role of nuclear energy in combating climate change is controversial,
supported by some as a clean energy source because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but opposed by others because of nuclear waste
and other concerns. In a May 6 speech at the NEI annual "nuclear energy assembly" May 5-7 in Chicago, IL, union department
president Mark Ayers said the current federal loan guarantee program of $18.5 billion for new nuclear projects "is not sufficient in
either duration or dollars." Stating that "more and more interest groups are recognizing the need for nuclear energy in combating
global warming trends," Ayers said that during this Congress, "Our primary mission is to secure an extension of the loan guarantee
program to 'kick start' the renewal of nuclear power generation in this country."




                                                                                                                                     13
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                         Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key*
( ) Loan guarantees are vital to building new nuclear power plants
Bogardus 07 (Kevin Bogardus, Nuclear power, banks link up in bid to get better financing, May 24, 2007, http://thehill.com/the-
executive/nuclear-power-banks-link-up-in-bid-to-get-better-financing-2007-05-24.html)
In a meeting in April with OMB, a representative from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), electric utility executives and a banking
official pushed for complete loan guarantee coverage that could cover 80 percent of a project‘s cost. Without better coverage, say
nuclear energy advocates, the nuclear “renaissance” could be seriously derailed. Since the April meeting, the Department of
Energy (DoE) has proposed that the federal government cover 90 percent of loan guarantees, higher than its original guidelines of 80
percent, released in August 2006. DoE‘s proposed coverage under Title XVIII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, has left
many in the nuclear industry dissatisfied because they seek 100 percent coverage. ―There either will be no or limited new nuclear
plants developed without a workable loan guarantee program,‖ said Peter Saba of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker. Saba, who
represents nuclear energy companies and served in the DoE in the George H.W. Bush administration, attended the meeting and said
that in the banking community, ―there is not going to be any financing‖ unless the loan guarantee is fixed. Loan guarantees by the
federal government act as default protection for private lenders when they help finance massive projects, like nuclear power plants, to
take into account certain risks and possible delays. In materials circulated to OMB, executives from financial institutions including
Credit Suisse and Lehman Brothers wrote that ―lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a
series of major risks, including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant.‖ They also made clear they
wanted to avoid ―another Shoreham‖ — referring to the decommissioned Long Island nuclear power plant that saddled residents with
huge electric rates without producing any power. The NEI provided a stark assessment by its New Plant Finance Task Force, a group
of nuclear executives across the country. Without better loan guarantee coverage, the task force argued, companies would have
difficulty in financing new plants, which can cost as much as $4 billion.

( ) Loan guarantees are absolutely critical to nuclear plant construction
AP 07 (Associated Press, Industry Pushes Nuclear Loan Guarantees, Nov. 28, 2007, http://www.fool.com/news/associated-
press/2007/11/28/industry-pushes-nuclear-loan-guarantees.aspx)
The Energy Department last month said it will guarantee loans for up to 80 percent of the construction cost of new nuclear reactors,
but that budget constraints mean the earliest any company proposing a new reactor could benefit is 2009. Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman said then that he would seek "substantial" budget increases for loan guarantees to support seven to eight nuclear plants. "The
trend line is positive and encouraging, but today we're not there," Wallace said at a conference in Washington, referring to the
industry's ongoing dialogue with the Energy Department, Congress and the White House. But he said it's not a question of whether it
will happen, but when. Three companies already have submitted complete construction and operating license applications for new
reactors to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Constellation filed a partial application earlier this year for a proposed new
reactor in Lusby, Md. Dominion Resources Inc. on Tuesday became the third company to file a complete application for a new nuclear
reactor, at its North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Va., following the Tennessee Valley Authority, which last month applied
for new reactors at the Bellefonte nuclear power station near Scottsboro, Ala. NRG Energy Inc. in September was the first company in
about 30 years to submit a new application to build and operate new reactors, at its Bay City, Texas, power plant site. No companies
have committed to building new plants, which are expected to cost more than $5 billion, without a reliable loan-guarantee program
because of the risks to their financial health, Wallace said.

( ) Loan guarantees solve nuclear power
Miller 07 (William H. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the
University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor, Financing the next generation of nuclear
power plants, Sept. 23, 2007, http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.pdf)
Nuclear power today compares favorably with other energy sources. Because nuclear plants are performing more efficiently than in
the past and their fuel costs are relatively cheap, the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity is slightly less than the cost of
producing power at coal plants and one-third the cost of electricity from plants fueled with natural gas. Nuclear power's competitive
edge is likely to widen once the government begins regulating carbon emissions or Congress approves a carbon tax. Loan guarantees
for new nuclear plants are a relatively painless way to deal with the potentially devastating effects of energy shortages, imported oil
and global warming. And that's something Congress should keep in mind.




                                                                                                                                        14
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                         Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key*
( ) Loan guarantees are key to nuclear power- they’re too expensive to build otherwise
Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear power surge coming, Sept. 28, 2007,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn.html)
With virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions, reactors are touted as part of the solution to global warming. Over the next 15 months,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of similar permit applications for up to 28 new reactors, costing up to $90
billion to build. But the renaissance may be less robust than it looks. Even if the projects are successful and building proceeds at
breakneck speed, the lead times are so long and costs so high that it's unclear that the US can build enough nuclear plants to make a
dent in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They're so financially risky, experts say, that the only reason building plans are under way
is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults. "Clearly, [nuclear power companies] are not
so confident or they wouldn't want the federal government and taxpayer to be guaranteeing the loans," says David Schlissel a longtime
nuclear industry analyst with consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge, Mass. The industry says it needs the aid to
get nuclear power rolling again. "Yes, we need some help and assistance getting these large projects off the ground," says Paul Genoa
of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in Washington. "This will always be labeled as subsidies. But one person's subsidy is another
person's incentive. These are the first nuclear power plants to be built in years and there's a role for government here." Also, loan
guarantees don't affect taxpayers unless those loans are defaulted on, he points out. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the industry
already is getting an estimated $12 billion in tax breaks and other largess. The Price-Anderson Act, a law dating from the 1950s, caps
the industry's liability at about $10 billion in the event of an accident, even though studies show that a major nuclear meltdown could
easily run 50 times that. Now, the Senate version of a new energy bill includes a provision that could provide tens of billions of
dollars more in federal-loan guarantees. On Tuesday, the Energy Department announced it would provide up to $2 billion in federal
risk insurance for the first six new nuclear-plant projects, protecting them against losses from regulatory or legal delays. "In my view,
these kinds of taxpayer subsidies are vital to the industry, and they wouldn't be building any of these new nuclear plants without
them," says Doug Koplow, president of Earth Track, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm that analyzes subsidies for all forms of
energy, including biofuels.

( ) Loan guarantees are the vital internal link for nuclear power investment
EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose
Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-
07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf)
The position taken by Wall Street regarding investing in nuclear energy indicates the financial risk involved. Six of the nation‘s largest
investors—Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley—submitted comments to
DOE in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking for the loan guarantee program in June 2007. At the time the comments were
submitted, DOE had promised to guarantee loans for up to 80 percent of the project costs, but had not, as of then, determined what
percent of this debt it would guarantee. The investors urged greater financial support from the federal government, stating, ―We
believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other
generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit.‖32 Members of this group also made note of
the many investment concerns associated with nuclear energy: ―Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely
concerned about a number of political, regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power, including the possibility
of delays.‖33 They concluded that DOE shouldguarantee 100 percent of the loans as one of the ―minimum conditions necessary to
secure project financing from lenders and from investors in the fixed income markets.‖34 The nuclear industry itself has made clear
that the construction of new nuclear projects will rely heavily upon the financial backing of DOE through the loan guarantee
program. A press release from the Nuclear Energy Institute on October 4, 2007, demonstrated this view when it announced, ―It is
imperative that the Energy Department have in place a loan guarantee program that will support the financing for these large, capital-
intensive power plant projects.‖35 Both the nuclear industry and Wall Street investors make it clear that new nuclear projects carry a
significant financial risk, one that neither wants to carry without support from the federal government.




                                                                                                                                       15
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                Solvency Extensions/Loan Guarantees Key*
( ) Loan guarantees key to building new nuclear power plants and it won’t cost a thing
Weaver 08 (Lynn Edward Weaver is president emeritus of the Florida Institute of Technology, Orlando Sentinel, March 31, 2008, Get
behind nuclear power, LN)
Although according to a number of experts, global warming is the largest environmental problem we face, anyone who thinks
Congress is serious about a solution should consider that it has yet to provide some critically needed support for construction of new
nuclear-power plants. Electric utilities are gearing up to add between four and eight nuclear plants over the next several years, which
produce no greenhouse gases or air pollution, but these units might not get built unless funding is made available for loan guarantees.
The guarantees have been authorized in energy-policy legislation for years, but Congress has still not appropriated the specific
funding. The problem is that when utilities were building the last new nuclear plants in the 1970s and 1980s, they got caught in a perfect storm of mounting
regulations, high inflation and interest rates, and a slowing of power demand, as our economy suffered from OPEC's oil embargoes. Because of delays and price
escalations, they wound up costing much more than had been expected. Wall Street remembers that experience and worries about the uncertainty            of
regulation and construction time for the next round of nuclear plants. In case there are problems outside the control of the companies
that are building the plants -- like high inflation or new regulations -- banks are now insisting on loan guarantees. Federal support for
a strategically important energy source is hardly new. We wouldn't have the oil, gas or coal industries as they are today without massive federal support.
Wind and solar power exist only because of government subsidies. The main alternative fuel for vehicles -- ethanol -- is totally a result of tax credits and subsidies. For
national security and environmental requirements, the government has an appropriate role in supporting the development of clean, American energy sources. And the
request for nuclear is not an outright subsidy -- just a guarantee that if an extremely serious and unlikely delay occurred, the government would help fund the additional
cost. Most experts agree that it is extremely unlikely that the guarantees would ever cost the government a dollar.


( ) Financial certainty key to nuclear plant construction
Schoen 07 (John Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Does nuclear power now make financial sense?,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/)
Now, nearly three decades after the last new plant was approved, proponents of nuclear power say the economics of atom-splitting
energy have dramatically improved. In fact, they argue, financial forces have become a driving force behind a new enthusiasm for
nuclear energy as the power industry scrambles to meet growing demand for electricity with an aging fleet of generating stations. But
the industry still needs to raise tens of billions of dollars before the proposed round of new plants can be built. That means persuading
Wall Street investors to put up the money and state utility regulators to bless the higher rates needed to pay for these multi-billion-
dollar projects. Despite billions of dollars in federal incentives to jump-start construction of a half dozen new nuclear plants, any new
wave of nuclear construction will have to satisfy those two groups if it‘s ever going to get off the ground, said Dimitri Nikas, a utility
industry analyst at Standard & Poor‘s, one of the bond rating agencies that will be advising investors on the credit risk involved in
financing these projects. ―The biggest battle will be with utilities getting enough certainty that they will be able to recover their
investment and regulators ... getting certainty that this is indeed the lowest cost and the most appropriate way to address increasing
power demand, the greenhouse gas risk and costs that will continue to increase," he said.




                                                                                                                                                                        16
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                                   Economy Advantage




                                    Nuclear Power Key to Econ- Jobs
( ) Loan guarantees are key to create tens of thousands of new jobs
Kosterlitz 08 (Julie Kosterlitz, ―Yes to Nukes,‖ May. 3, 2008, National Journal Magazine,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/ll_20080503_3181.php)
The allure of nuclear power for labor is the massive number of jobs--as many as 71,300 during peak construction--that the industry
says would be needed to build the 31 reactors on the drawing board. But none of the plants has received the required approvals and
financing yet, so the promise of such jobs is just that--a promise. Still, the industry is already trying to line up workers and suppliers.
At the Building and Construction annual meeting in Washington in April, the union and Bechtel announced that they would ink a
labor agreement by year's end for construction of Constellation Energy's proposed reactor. The nuclear industry's ambitious plans
and the corresponding jobs are unlikely to be realized without the federal loan guarantees. Over the objections of
environmentalists and fiscal conservatives, Congress did approve $18.5 billion in guarantees last year under the auspices of the Energy
Department. But the industry will likely need more than that amount, and many key details remain to be worked out. Among them:
What a company getting loan guarantees should have to pay up front to compensate taxpayers for taking on the risk of default.

( ) Nuclear power expansion would add tens of thousands of jobs
Forbes 08 (Nuclear Energy's Resurgence Promises to Spur Job Growth, June 17, 2008,
http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/06/17/prnewswire200806171059PR_NEWS_USPR_____NETU094.html)
The white paper examines the job growth potential for existing and future nuclear power plants and finds that nuclear plants are a
boon to local economies. Altogether, 12,000 to 21,000 new jobs will be added to the U.S. market if some 30 reactors currently planned
for construction are built. These are long-term jobs that would exist throughout the operation of the reactor, promising decades of
employment. -- Each nuclear plant provides 400 to 700 high-paying jobs. -- Depending on construction methods, each new reactor
could require as many as 4,000 workers per project at peak periods. -- According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual
salary for nuclear engineers is $82,900 -- approximately $8,000 more than all other engineering disciplines except petroleum
engineering. -- Each of the country's 104 reactors generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for the local community,
and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income. "Nuclear power provides a clean energy solution that produces no greenhouse
gases and is good for the economy," said Whitman. "A renewed focus on nuclear energy will translate into tens of thousands of high-
paying American jobs needed to build and operate new reactors."

( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power key to boost manufacturing and jobs
Upton 08 (U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Kalamazoo Gazette,
April 1, 2008, With support, nuclear power can lead the way in efforts to cut greenhouse gases, LN)
I am pleased that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and the Bush administration have signaled support for expanding nuclear power,
and now Congress has a responsibility to provide assistance by establishing loan guarantees, streamlining the licensing process and
reprocessing spent fuel. Not only will nuclear power lead the way in our efforts to cut greenhouse gases, but a commitment to nuclear
power over the next few decades will also drive our economic recovery. As a consequence of not having constructed a new nuclear
facility in over 30 years, an entire manufacturing sector has been shuttered. While we have seen a majority of the component-
construction and manufacturing jobs in the nuclear industry migrate overseas, we have a unique opportunity to bring those jobs back
home. And with many nations throughout the world, including China, pursuing a robust nuclear portfolio, we have the potential to
solidify a stronger manufacturing base for decades to come. The benefits of building just one plant are remarkable -- creating well
over 2,000 jobs for construction and then employing between 600 to 1,500 individuals for plant operation. An equivalent number of
indirect jobs are also created within the surrounding community, and each new plant adds more than $500 million per year to the
economy.




                                                                                                                                        17
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                      CO2 Regulations Internal Link
( ) Expansion of nuclear power key to offset coming CO2 regulations will tank the economy
Spencer 08 (Jack Spencer, Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies, Energy Publisher, June 3, 2008, Nuclear power needed to offset environmental laws,
http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=175&id=15414&t=Nuclear+power+needed+to+offset+environme
ntal+laws)
Anxiety over human-induced global warming is driving the debate over energy policy. The Lieberman–Warner climate change bill (S.
2191) is the political manifestation of this fear. Many who support the broader agenda of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), view Lieberman–Warner as a significant step forward and see the benefits of reducing carbon dioxide as
outweighing the costs of the bill. Those who are more skeptical of global warming take an opposite view. A recent Heritage
Foundation analysis, for example, estimates the costs to the U.S. economy at between $1.8 trillion and $4.8 trillion by 2030.[1] While
analyses differ, they have some common threads. For example, most show that Lieberman–Warner will have a significant negative
economic impact. They also assume that some CO2-free technologies will be brought online quicker than many believe is
technologically or economically feasible. Finally, most rely on a broad expansion of nuclear power to mitigate the bill's negative
economic consequences and to help achieve the CO2 cap targets. Although many supporters of Lieberman–Warner are quick to call
attention to conclusions that show the least negative economic impact, they often fail to mention that the results depend on a massive
expansion of nuclear power. For example, as noted by the Environmental Defense Fund, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
analysis concludes that economic growth would be minimally affected by Lieberman–Warner but makes no mention of the fact that
this conclusion depends on a broad expansion of nuclear energy.[2] It is not just that nuclear power is needed, but that a massive
amount of nuclear power is needed in a relatively short period of time. The EPA analysis assumes a 150 percent increase in
nuclear power by 2050.[3] While meeting this demand would require a substantial industrial effort, it is miniscule in comparison to an
Energy Information Agency (EIA) analysis that suggests that the U.S. must increase its nuclear capacity by 268 gigawatts of new
nuclear power by 2030.[4] These numbers must be put into perspective. The U.S. has 104 operating reactors today with a capacity of
approximately 100 gigawatts. New reactors would likely be larger, on average, than existing reactors. Assuming that the average new
reactor will produce about 1.3 gigawatts of electric power, the EPA analysis would require nearly 50 new reactors, while the EIA's
analysis would require approximately 200 over the next 25 years. The reality is that the United States has not ordered a new reactor
since the mid-1970s and it does not have the industrial infrastructure to build even one reactor today. Its industrial and intellectual
base atrophied as the nuclear industry declined over the past three decades. Large forging production, heavy manufacturing,
specialized piping, mining, fuel services, and skilled labor all must be reconstituted in massive quantities. Global supply is no more
promising, especially when one considers that the rest of the world is coming to similar conclusions about the emerging role of nuclear
power in meeting CO2 reductions. The global nuclear industrial base currently supports 33 reactors under construction (mostly in Asia
and Russia) and the normal operation and maintenance of the world's existing 439 reactors (including those in the U.S.). Even under
today's conditions, bottlenecks emerge within the global supply chain for items such as heavy forgings, piping, skilled labor, and
manufacturing. While building enough nuclear power plants to minimize the economic impacts of CO2 caps may be desirable, the
reality is that the global industrial base could not support such a project in the U.S., much less the rest of the world. Thus, the amount
of nuclear power required to sustain the optimistic Lieberman–Warner economic projections is impossible to achieve within the
timeframes that they would require. This is especially true as the U.S. has yet to resolve many issues that continue to face the nuclear
industry. Using such optimistic nuclear projections to support an analysis with minimal economic consequences of S. 2191 is therefore
completely unrealistic. It is ironic that support for Lieberman–Warner that is based on such unrealistic scenarios is often coupled with
strong antagonism toward nuclear power. Passive support is no better. Given the role of nuclear energy in minimizing the economic
impacts of CO2 reductions, those who support such cuts should actively support nuclear power. Many politicians and organizations
attempt to remain agnostic or tepid toward nuclear energy by arguing that nuclear power might have a role to play if certain conditions
are met. They then ensure that their conditions are set in such a way as to be unattainable. To suggest that the nuclear industry must
improve its safety record is an example of this. No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. How does
one improve on this? To argue that the waste problem must first be solved, but then to stand in the way of building Yucca Mountain or
reprocessing nuclear fuel (both of which are safe methods of waste management), is equally dubious. If one views atmospheric
emissions as such a threat that CO2 reductions should be made the central organizing tenet of America's economic and energy policy
(and thus society), then the moral policy should be to achieve that objective in an economically rational way. The motives of anyone
who denies society access to the technologies best capable of achieving its stated goals, either by explicit antagonism or through
implicit passivity, must be questioned. On the other hand, if CO2 reduction is truly the objective, then maximizing America's nuclear
resources as quickly as possible should be a top priority. While doing so would still not likely allow the U.S. to meet the levels of
nuclear power described in either the EIA or the EPA analyses, it could at least minimize the economic impact of Lieberman–Warner.
But doing so will require long-term, sustained, bipartisan support for nuclear energy. Without this support, the billions of dollars of
private capital needed to expand America's nuclear capacity will simply not be invested. Without this investment, even the rosiest
Lieberman–Warner economic projections lose what little credibility they had at the outset.
                                                                                                                                      18
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                Ext- Nuclear Power Solves CO2 Regs
( ) Nuclear solves the economy and warming
CDP 08 (Congressional Documents and Publications, May 12, 2008, Analyses Show Lieberman-Warner Depends on Significant
Nuclear Energy Increases, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, LN)
The expansion of nuclear energy will be a key debate if the America's Climate Security Act - S.2191 (Lieberman-Warner) cap-and-
trade bill comes to the Senate Floor. As economic analyses show, significant carbon reductions are contingent on the construction of
extensive numbers of new nuclear plants. FACT: Economic analyses show Lieberman-Warner would require massive development of
nuclear energy, up to 268 new plants by 2030, according to the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) most recent analysis: that's two
and a half times the number of plants we have operating today - an increase so massive and unrealistic as to be fictional. In addition to
EIA, the chart below shows the necessary projections as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF): EIA's analysis further showed that merely limiting the
construction of new nuclear plants dramatically increased allowance costs and electricity costs, while decreasing reductions in carbon
emissions. This clearly indicates that nuclear energy is the key to reducing carbon emissions and reducing the costs of any such effort.
Proponents of climate change legislation can't continue to reject the world's largest source of carbon-free energy. However, any large-
scale development of nuclear energy will face several challenges including regulatory predictability and waste management, but
perhaps the most significant challenge will be the scale of the financing needed to accommodate such a large number of projects. The
Electric Power Research Institute's projection of 64 new plants by 2030, which is considered an extremely optimistic goal by industry
experts, would require the industry to find financing of approximately $384 billion. Companies looking to build just one or two plants
may need financing equal to half of their total market capitalization. CEO's will not gamble the health of their companies if the
financial risks are too high or if political support is shaky. One of the ways the federal government can address this situation is by
helping to create a stable financing platform upon which executives can base their decisions. Loan guarantees is one such tool. If
proponents of climate change legislation are serious about reducing carbon emissions, it's time to stop dodging the issue and embrace
nuclear energy. Robust construction of emissions-free nuclear plants requires robust support from the Congress now.

( ) Inevitable carbon taxes will make nuclear power the cheapest alternative
Schoen 07 (John Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Does nuclear power now make financial sense?,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/)
Carbon tax: The U.S. has been slow to adopt economic incentives to cut carbon emissions linked to global warming, but many power
industry leaders expect Washington to levy some form of ―carbon tax‖ in the life span — 40 years or more — of any new nuclear
plant built in the next few years. Because nuclear plants emit virtually no carbon into the atmosphere, that would give them a huge
economic advantage over plants that burn fossil fuels. That financial edge could be $12 per megawatt less than the cost of electricity
generated by plants that burn fossil fuels, according to Keuter, the Entergy official, adding that generating costs for new nuclear plants
are expected to average $40 to $50 per megawatt. Though alternatives like solar- and wind-generated power offer opportunities to
hedge future penalties and rising fossil fuel costs, even in the most optimistic projections those power sources won‘t be able to meet
the growing ―baseload‖ power demand expected in the next several decades.




                                                                                                                                       19
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                             Prices Internal Link
( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power would make electricity prices drop
IHS 07 (IHS is a leading global source of critical information and insight for customers in a broad range of industries, Feb. 28, 2007,
Nuclear Energy Industry Experiences Record Year, Anticipates Developments, Growth, http://petrochemical.ihs.com/news-07Q1/nei-
nuclear-energy.jsp)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included incentives for a limited number of advanced-design nuclear plants among its provisions encouraging improved energy
efficiency and the construction of renewable energy sources and cleaner fossil-fired power plants. The legislation provides limited investment incentives for
construction of nuclear plants and other high-capital-cost clean energy technologies. But it does not by itself resolve all financing challenges, particularly with regard to
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) implementation of the clean technology-neutral loan guarantee program that the energy bill authorized, Bowman said. "The
construction period is when a new nuclear project most needs credit support," he said. "Unfortunately, the [DOE] interim guidelines
published last year were developed without input from companies with financial expertise and are not optimal for large power
projects. So we must continue to work cooperatively with the agency as it moves forward. Constructive input from credible
organizations and institutions, including the financial community, will be essential to making this program a success." Properly
implemented, the loan guarantee program will reduce financing costs and thus reduce the consumer cost of electricity from the project,
Bowman said. The industry's average production costs - including expenses for uranium fuel and operations and maintenance - were an all-time low of 1.66
cents/kW in 2006, according to preliminary NEI figures. Average production costs have been below 2 cents/kW for the past eight years, making nuclear power plants
cost competitive with other electricity sources, particularly those capable of reliably producing large amounts of electricity. Electricity production at nuclear power
plants has increased 36% since 1990, adding the equivalent of more than 26 large power plants to the electrical grid and preventing the emission of massive amounts of
controlled air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The average production cost dropped to a record-low even though prices for uranium fuel have
increased over the past three years. Production costs are a key measure of an electricity source's competitiveness in the market because
generating companies typically dispatch their low-cost electricity to the grid first. Even when expenses for taxes, decommissioning
and yearly capital additions are added to production costs to yield a total electricity cost, nuclear-generated electricity typically clears
the market for less than 2.5 cents/kW. By comparison, production costs alone for natural gas-fired power plants averaged 7.5
cents/kW in 2005, according to Global Energy Decisions data.

( ) Low, stable prices are key to the economy
EEI 08 (Edison Electric Institute, Electricity and the U.S. Economy, http://www.getenergyactive.org/value/economy.htm)
The U.S. economy is highly dependent on affordable and reliable electricity. In fact, growth in electricity use has tracked growth
in the gross domestic product (GDP)—the nation‘s gauge of economic health—more closely than any other source of energy since the
end of World War II. The tie between electricity use and the economy is the product of many factors, including the development of
advanced electric technologies, population changes, and the relatively stable price of electricity.




                                                                                                                                                                         20
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                      Ext- Nuclear Power Key Low Prices
( ) Loan guarantees key to lower prices over the long term
Ganthner 07 (Ray Ganthner is Ray Ganthner is currently Senior Vice President of AREVA NP Inc.'s New Plants Deployment business unit, ―Council on Foreign
Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?‖ Council on Foreign
Relations, June 15, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)
If you take an 80 percent loan guarantee such that the cost of the capital is reduced and that you can use that as a way to reduce the
production cost of electricity, it comes out to about $40 a megawatt hour. So it's a tremendous impact of those loan guarantees,
assuming 80 percent is available. If you take also the production tax credits, that adds about another $10 of value to the business case.
Now the production tax credits are not indefinite. They expire, I believe, after eight years of operation. So that effect goes away. It is
simply a stimulus to get the industry moving in the direction of building new plants.

( ) Loan guarantees make the electricity source cheaper
Bowman 08 (FRANK L. (SKIP) BOWMAN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, Remarks at the
Nuclear Energy Assembly, Facing Facts, MAY 6, 2008, Nuclear Energy Institute,
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/bowmanspeech_050508/)
Do you know who benefits from loan guarantees for advanced clean energy technologies? Not the stockholders of the companies, but
the consumers of electricity. Loan guarantees allow us to finance more efficiently, using more debt than equity. Because debt is
always cheaper than equity, a project‘s cost of capital is lower than would otherwise be the case. As a result, the cost of electricity
from that project – the amount it must recover from the market to cover all its costs – is also lower.

( ) Nuclear loan guarantees key to low energy prices
Miller 07 (William H. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the
University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor, Financing the next generation of nuclear
power plants, Sept. 23, 2007, http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.pdf)
Nuclear power today compares favorably with other energy sources. Because nuclear plants are performing more efficiently than in
the past and their fuel costs are relatively cheap, the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity is slightly less than the cost of
producing power at coal plants and one-third the cost of electricity from plants fueled with natural gas. Nuclear power's competitive
edge is likely to widen once the government begins regulating carbon emissions or Congress approves a carbon tax. Loan guarantees
for new nuclear plants are a relatively painless way to deal with the potentially devastating effects of energy shortages, imported oil
and global warming. And that's something Congress should keep in mind.

( ) Nuclear would lower electricity prices and solve our dependence on foreign energy
Spencer 07 (Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies, ―Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,‖ The Heritage Foundation, Nov.15, 2007,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm)
The near death of the U.S. nuclear energy industry has harmed both investors and consumers. First, ratepayers eventually pay for the
increased costs of generating electricity. More important, by removing nuclear energy from America's energy portfolio, anti-nuclear
activists have limited the choices available to America's energy producers and consumers. Limiting choice has two inevitable results:
higher prices and lower quality.Without nuclear energy as an option and with coal being frowned upon, utilities started moving toward
natural gas power plants. This growing reliance on natural gas has caused electricity prices to follow the volatility of natural gas
prices. As demand for natural gas has increased, prices have become even more volatile.Perhaps more ominously, it positions the
United States to increase its reliance on foreign energy significantly. Today, America's energy dependence is largely a function of
foreign petroleum and the transportation sector. The nation gets only about 2 percent of its electricity from oil-fired plants. However,
the growing U.S. dependence on natural gas is beginning to exceed domestic supply. This has resulted in increasing natural gas
imports. Importing energy is not necessarily a problem if those resources are coming from stable, friendly countries, but foreign
natural gas reserves are located largely in many of the same, less predictable countries that have large petroleum reserves.




                                                                                                                                                           21
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                  Ext- Nuclear Power Key Low Prices
( ) Nuclear is cheaper than current energy sources
CBO 08 (Congressional Budget Office, ―Nuclear Power‘s Role in Generating Electricity,‖ May 2008,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf)
The cost of fuel is one of the most significant operating costs included in CBO‘s estimates of the levelized cost of options for
generating electricity. The base-case assumption for nuclear power is that $8 (in 2006 dollars) in fuel costs are incurred for each
megawatt hour of electricity generated (see Table 2-3). That contrasts with $16 for conventional coal-fired plants and $40 for
conventional natural gas plants.10 Those assumptions are based on long-term projections by EIA. In the past, fuel costs have proved
difficult to predict, particularly the price of natural gas. (See Figure 2-1 for fluctuations in fuel prices between 1995 and 2006.) In
addition to those base-case assumptions, CBO also estimated levelized costs using alternative assumptions intended to capture most
plausible variations in fuel costs.

( ) Electricity prices are rising at an incredibly fast rate- only nuclear power can solve this crisis
Ganthner 07 (Ray Ganthner is Ray Ganthner is currently Senior Vice President of AREVA NP Inc.'s New Plants Deployment
business unit, ―Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is
the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?‖ Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)
So I wanted to talk now about the business case for nuclear energy. Clearly, the driving factor is the electricity price escalation. I've
taken some graphs here form different parts of the country just to illustrate how the price of electricity -- this is beyond peak electricity
rates -- has changed in the last three or four years. You can see that typically -- take the New York zone -- there's about $50 of
megawatt hour in 2003 and it is now about $110, $112 per hour -- approximately doubling. And you can see for most of the regions
of the country, we've seen a doubling of electricity on- peak prices in the last four or five years.




                                                                                                                                          22
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                            AT: High Uranium Prices
( ) High uranium prices don’t necessarily mean high nuclear prices- it doesn’t correlate like other power
sources
Ganthner 07 (Ray Ganthner is Ray Ganthner is currently Senior Vice President of AREVA NP Inc.'s New Plants Deployment
business unit, ―Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is
the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?‖ Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)
Uranium's also gone up. This is a chart which shows, the red line, the real 2006 dollar-adjusted price of uranium over the last 35
years. And you can see that it's now approaching -- after a period of stability it's approaching some new highs, which we'll talk about
again in a second. But in nominal dollars it sounds -- which was the current "at that time" dollars -- it has been in the low $40 a
pound. Last year on Spot prices of uranium -- and Spot prices, of course, is not the price that a utility would pay for a uranium
supply, but it is a measure that we can quantify. It's more than doubled in the last year and that's being driven up by some flooding in
some uranium mines and the demand for uranium going up with the supply decreasing because of the floods and the predictions of
reduced capacity for production, and because of the reduction in the amount of former Russian uranium -- enriched uranium that's
being able to come to market. So what does that mean for the nuclear plant? If the price of uranium goes up, the price of the fuel
doesn't necessarily travel exactly on the same path. Whereas a gas plant and coal plant, the price of the actual fuel that they burn is the
driving function for the production costs. For a nuclear plant it's -- the price of uranium drives only a part of it. For instance, today if
we look at what we might have for a typical reload of a $100 million value of uranium and conversion and enrichment, the cost
represents a significant factor in the cost of production, but if you look at a forecast of uranium doubling -- approximately doubling
with our forecast of about $43 a point -- in the 15 to 20, 25 period, the total cost of the fuel went up to 126 million (dollars). So it
went up 26 percent total fuel, even though uranium went up 65 percent, so that the message here is that the price of uranium doesn't
necessarily drive one for one the production costs of nuclear.

( ) Uranium prices won’t push up nuclear prices and we won’t run out
Lavelle 08 (Marianne Lavelle, High Uranium Price Doesn't Faze the Industry, February 25, 2008, U.S. News & World Report,
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2008/2/25/high-uranium-price-doesnt-faze-the-industry.html)
Other fuels have boom-and-bust cycles. So why not uranium? But perhaps befitting an atomic fuel that decays rather slowly,
uranium's commodity price swings appear to be unfolding over generations instead of years. From the 1950s through the 1970s, when
uranium was being used in nuclear weapons, and later, nuclear power plants, it was selling at a hefty price. Then the market got a one-
two punch: first, when the tide turned against nuclear energy in the United States after Three Mile Island, and a decade later, when the
Cold War ended and weapon stockpile uranium became readily available. The price was less than $10 a pound in the 1980s and fell to
a low of $7 a pound in 2003. But then, the same growing global demand for energy, particularly in Asia, that has pushed up oil prices
also began to drive up the price of uranium. With new nuclear power construction proceeding apace in other countries, the price of
uranium rose to $40 per pound in 2006 and hit an all-time high of nearly $140 per pound one year ago. Since then, the price has
receded somewhat, bouncing around in the $75 to $95 range—about what it was in the 1970s, when adjusted for inflation. Last week,
at the Nuclear Energy Institute's presentation on the state of the industry for Wall Street, one analyst asked whether there were any
concerns about the availability of uranium at these renewed higher prices. Gerald Grandey, chief executive officer of Cameco, the
world's largest uranium producer, which accounts for 20 percent of world production from mines both in Canada and the United
States, gave his outlook. "We're very confident," he said. "I don't think the availability of uranium is much of an issue. The first wave
of exploration in the 1960s and 1970s, we found in five years enough uranium to power the industry for 40 years. And for two
decades, the price was way too low to encourage mine development." Over that time, the industry was able to live off reserves. But
now that prices are high again, "there are not just five companies but 400 out there looking for the next generation of deposits,"
Grandey said. "And those who have gone in early went back to the discoveries of the 1960s and 1970s—those will be the first to go
into production over the next four to five years with major new discoveries. Uranium is a very common element in the Earth's crust,
and with proper development, there will be more than enough uranium to power the industry for a long time." Skip Bowman, the
NEI's president, added that the cost of uranium—including the ore, the refining, and enrichment—was only one quarter of the
production cost of nuclear energy, which he said the industry estimated at 1.68 cents per kilowatt hour. (That's not what anyone's
paying for nuclear energy on a utility bill, by the way, but what the industry says it costs to produce.) "It's truly to the right of the
decimal point," he said, adding that nuclear power plants operate on long-standing contracts for uranium supply, so they don't chase
the ups and downs of the spot price.




                                                                                                                                         23
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                     AT: Enough Nuclear Power Now
( ) We have to keep building plants just to stay at the current level of electricity
Ganthner 07 (Ray Ganthner is Ray Ganthner is currently Senior Vice President of AREVA NP Inc.'s New Plants Deployment
business unit, ―Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy, Session II: What Is
the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?‖ Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)
So let's look at the nuclear plants that we have on line today. About a hundred gigawatts, a hundred thousand megawatts is the total
capacity of the plants. If we take those plants that have already renewed their licenses, that's the red line. If we forecast that all the
plants will eventually renew their licenses that are operating now, we have the capacity that goes to about zero in 2050. And if we
assume that the nuclear energy industry should stay about 20 percent of our total production of electricity in the U.S. and put a 2
percent growth on that curve, how many nuclear plants do we need to build during that period of time? Well, we've got to build about
40 new nuclear plants over that period of time just to deal with the growth of the electricity demand in the United States. At the same
time, in around 2030, we've got to start replacing the nuclear plants to maintain that 20 percent growth rate, and we have to build
about 60 or 70 more large nuclear plants to make up that growth. And that just is to maintain the same share of non-carbon- emitting
nuclear energy that we have today. So what does that mean? If you take a baseline of 200,000 megawatts of additional capacity
needed in the next 20 years or so, that means that if we start getting new plants on line in 2015 -- assuming a three- or four-year
licensing and a five-year or so construction period -- we need about 25 to 30 new plants by 2025 just to maintain the share, and then
60 or 70 new plants to replace the retiring plants.




                                                                                                                                       24
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                                 Warming Advantage




                                     Nuclear Power Solves Warming
( ) Nuclear power can solving warming even with vast increases in electricity usage
Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance, E The
Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780)
The case for Dominion as a friend of the Earth is based on a few simple facts: It generates 45 percent of Connecticut‘s electricity and
30 percent of Virginia‘s without taking a huge toll in smokestack-emitted global warming gas. In fact, there are no smokestacks,
because (aside from the occasional release of radioactive material) the only thing nuclear power plants vent is steam. What‘s more, in
contrast to the modest current capacity of wind and solar power, nukes can produce very large amounts of electricity—enough to
counter global warming by taking highly polluting coal-burning plants offline even as electricity demand increases.

( ) Nuclear power key to solve warming
Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance, E The
Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780)
Nuclear power has already won some powerful allies in the environmental community. Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense says,
―We should all keep an open mind about nuclear power.‖ Jared Diamond, best-selling author of Collapse, says, ―To deal with our
energy problems we need everything available to us, including nuclear power,‖ which should be ―done carefully, like they do in
France, where there have been no accidents.‖ To which Stewart Brand, another apostate green who founded The Whole Earth Catalog
and Whole Earth Review, adds, ―The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is
nuclear power.‖ James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia theory about the planet‘s self-regulating systems, has called for, to quote The
Independent, ―a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power.‖ Actor Paul Newman visited New York‘s Indian Point plant and
praised its climate role. In many cases, these environmentalists see nuclear as only a temporary fix.

( ) Even if nuclear power isn’t an absolute panacea, it is necessary to solve any warming
Bowman 08 (FRANK L. (SKIP) BOWMAN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, Remarks at the
Nuclear Energy Assembly, Facing Facts, MAY 6, 2008, Nuclear Energy Institute,
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/bowmanspeech_050508/)
The most recent World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency, perhaps the pre-eminent global energy forecast,
showed world nuclear capacity increasing by about 12 percent from today‘s 368 gigawatts even in its business-as-usual scenario. IEA
also produced a ―450 Stabilization Scenario,‖ to identify what must happen to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at
450 parts per million. In that scenario, world nuclear capacity must more than double – from 368 gigawatts today to 833 gigawatts in
2030. Obviously, that additional nuclear capacity does not shoulder the entire carbon reduction load: end-use energy efficiency,
improved efficiency of coal-fired power plants, major gains in CO2 capture and storage are also necessary – but without nuclear
power, we simply can‘t get there.




                                                                                                                                     25
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                Energy Independence Add-On
( ) Nuclear power key to energy independence
Huber and Mills 05 (Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills, Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power, City Journal, Winter 2005,
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html)
The power has to come from somewhere. Sun and wind will never come close to supplying it. Earnest though they are, the people who
argue otherwise are the folks who brought us 400 million extra tons of coal a year. The one practical technology that could decisively
shift U.S. carbon emissions in the near term would displace coal with uranium, since uranium burns emission-free. It‘s time even for
Greens to embrace the atom. It must surely be clear by now, too, that the political costs of depending so heavily on oil from the
Middle East are just too great. We need to find a way to stop funneling $25 billion a year (or so) of our energy dollars into churning
cauldrons of hate and violence. By sharply curtailing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we would greatly expand the range of
feasible political and military options in dealing with the countries that breed the terrorists. The best thing we can do to decrease the
Middle East‘s hold on us is to turn off the spigot ourselves. For economic, ecological, and geopolitical reasons, U.S. policymakers
ought to promote electrification on the demand side, and nuclear fuel on the supply side, wherever they reasonably can.

( ) Ending oil dependence key to quelling terrorism
Ben-Meir 2005 (Alon Ben-Meir, What The West Still Doesn‘t Get, July 21, 2005, http://www.alonben-meir.com/articles/read/id/50)
Fourth, Islamic terrorism will not end unless the United States develops an energy- independence strategy that will permit it to stop
courting corrupt Arab oil-producing states and so compromise its long-term interests. As long as regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia
receive unqualified American support and protection, we can count on the Arab masses to intensify their hatred toward the West and
America in particular while attempting to undermine their governments from within. The curse of America‘s addiction to Arab oil
precipitated two gulf wars at an enormous cost in human and material resources. Energy experts estimate that the money spent on the
Iraq war, now approaching $300 billion, would have made America energy-independent by 2015. Continuing dependence on oil will
invite more frequent and spectacular terrorist acts and far greater American sacrifices in the future.

( ) And, terrorism causes extinction
Alexander 03 (Yonah Alexander, professor and director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Aug. 28 2003, Washington Times)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international
community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of
civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic
challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al
Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the
Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at
a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and
Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons,
including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the
religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological
warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional
and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have
entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning
national, regional and global security concerns.




                                                                                                                                                                        26
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                    Ext- Nuclear Power Solves Energy Independence
( ) Nuclear would lower electricity prices and solve our dependence on foreign energy
Spencer 07 (Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies, ―Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,‖ The Heritage Foundation, Nov.15, 2007,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm)
The near death of the U.S. nuclear energy industry has harmed both investors and consumers. First, ratepayers eventually pay for the
increased costs of generating electricity. More important, by removing nuclear energy from America's energy portfolio, anti-nuclear
activists have limited the choices available to America's energy producers and consumers. Limiting choice has two inevitable results:
higher prices and lower quality.Without nuclear energy as an option and with coal being frowned upon, utilities started moving toward
natural gas power plants. This growing reliance on natural gas has caused electricity prices to follow the volatility of natural gas
prices. As demand for natural gas has increased, prices have become even more volatile.Perhaps more ominously, it positions the
United States to increase its reliance on foreign energy significantly. Today, America's energy dependence is largely a function of
foreign petroleum and the transportation sector. The nation gets only about 2 percent of its electricity from oil-fired plants. However,
the growing U.S. dependence on natural gas is beginning to exceed domestic supply. This has resulted in increasing natural gas
imports. Importing energy is not necessarily a problem if those resources are coming from stable, friendly countries, but foreign
natural gas reserves are located largely in many of the same, less predictable countries that have large petroleum reserves.




                                                                                                                                     27
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                               Ext- Energy Independence Solves Terrorism
( ) Energy independence solves terrorism
Ben-Meir 2005 (Alon Ben-Meir, What The West Still Doesn‘t Get, July 21, 2005, http://www.alonben-meir.com/articles/read/id/50)
Meanwhile, the growing strategic interest of the United States in the Middle East and its increasing dependence on Arab oil made the
region‘s political stability a critical element in shaping America‘s policies toward the Arab states. This dependence helps explain why
the United States has supported and continues to support corrupt Arab regimes that oppress their people by military or royal
dictatorship. Arabs from every social and economic strata denounce the United States for its blind support of their governments, blame
America for its lack of evenhandedness in dealing with the conflict with Israel, and accuse Washington of hypocrisy in trying to cover
for its misdeeds by declaring it is pushing for democratic reform in the region. Surely, the Internet and the information revolution have
exposed Arab youth to the outside world, and they have gained a better understanding of the sources of their plight. Although they
have reserved much of their contempt for their own governments‘ subservience to the whims of the West, they also harbor deepening
reservoirs of resentment and even hatred for the West. The two Gulf wars have added insult to injury. Whereas the Arab masses were
willing to forgive the United States for the first war, especially since the conflict was quicky contained, Kuwait liberated, and
American troops promptly withdrawn, the Iraq war has confirmed their worst fears. Most Arabs believe that America is for America,
and oil and only oil drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. The many thousands of Iraqis that have died since the war are, according to the prevalent view,
sacrificial lambs on the altar of American imperialism. The British come off as little better: they are seen as a co-conspirators. Young Western Arab and Muslims
citizens wonder aloud why such grief and outrage are expressed for the British citizens who died in the subway and bus bombings while hardly any laments are heard
regarding the brutal deaths of Iraqis, including children, killed daily in multiple suicide bombings or by the occupation forces. Another element helps explain the
current situation. The Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 introduced a new dimension into radical Islam. Since then Iranian clergy have not only attempted to export their
brand of Islamic Shiiatism, undermine Arab states, and torpedo the Arab-Israeli peace process, they have made the West, especially the United States, a target of hatred
and disdain. Thus, while the governments of most Arab states, with the exception of Syria, distanced themselves from Teheran, Iran‘s
anti-American fervor resonated throughout much of the Arab world, making Islamic radicalism increasingly fashionable. Extremely
concerned over Iran‘s regional influence and despising Shiiatism in any form, the Saudis determined to blunt Iran‘s ambitions by
supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (1980 1988) while intensifying the effort to spread their own brand of Sunni
Wahabism throughout the Middle East and beyond. Toward this end, the Saudis spent billions of dollars to support tens of thousands
of schools (madrasat) in Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and other Arab and Muslim nations. The Saudi government have used these
madrasats to indoctrinate millions of young male Muslims with Koranic studies of Wahabism and to spread hatred for the West and
the Jews. Probably nothing has, or will, contribute more to the rank and file of terrorist groups than what these schools produce The
intense rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran has thus created a new generation of radical Muslims, who although coming from a
different poles of Islam, converge in their hatred toward the West.




                                                                                                                                                                      28
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                       Coal Add-On
( ) Expansion of nuclear power would displace coal
NJCD 08 (National Journal's CongressDaily, February 28, 2008, NRC Chairman Admits Lapses, Pledges Better Plant Safety, LN)
Subcommittee Chairman Tom Carper, D-Del., an advocate of nuclear-generated electricity, extolled it as a clean alternative to coal-
fired plants and as a way to displace the mounting need for imported oil and other nonrenwable energy sources. "I've been working to
make sure the NRC is ready for this nuclear renaissance," he said. But safety lapses threaten to undercut public confidence in nuclear
energy, he went on, and "reactor operators must get it right every day at every nuclear plant. In the nuclear power industry, perfection
can't be just a goal; it must be a daily practice.

( ) Coal-fired power plants are the number one cause of global warming
Lohr 06 (Steve Lohr, The Cost of an Overheated Planet, Dec. 12, 2006, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/business/worldbusiness/12warm.html)
The iconic culprit in global warming is the coal-fired power plant. It burns the dirtiest, most carbon-laden of fuels, and its
smokestacks belch millions of tons of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. So it is something of a surprise that James E.
Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a coal-burning utility in the Midwest and the Southeast, has emerged as an unexpected
advocate of federal regulation that would for the first time impose a cost for emitting carbon dioxide. But he has his reasons. ―Climate
change is real, and we clearly believe we are on a route to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide,‖ Mr. Rogers said. ―And we need to
start now because the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive this is going to be.‖ Global warming is not only an
environmental hazard, but also a great challenge for economic policy. Without economic incentives, analysts say, the needed
investments in industrial cleanup, innovative low-carbon technologies, fuel-efficient cars and other ways of reducing energy waste
will not occur. Mr. Rogers‘s stance is far from universal within the power industry, but it has surprising support, particularly from
those, like him, who also produce electricity from carbon-free nuclear reactors.

( ) Global warming causes extinction
Henderson 06 (Bill Henderson, Runaway Global Warming – Denial, Aug. 19, 2006, http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-
henderson190806.htm)
The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public -
still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting
ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If
impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the
atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several
million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share. Runaway global
warming: there are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils, carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a drought struck Amazon,
methane in Arctic peat bogs and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. For several decades it has been hypothesized
that rising temperatures from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels could be releasing some of and
eventually all of these stored carbon stocks to add substantually more potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.. Given time lags of
30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bombs
exploding, their released greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of
degrees higher than our norms of human habitation and therefor extinction or very near extinction of humanity.




                                                                                                                                      29
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                                             Answers To On-Case Arguments




                                             AT: Department of Energy Bad
( ) The DOE has fixed it’s implementation problems with the loan guarantee program
Sullivan and Walsh 08 (Mary Anne Sullivan, partner in Hogan & Hartson's energy practice, has more than 25 years of experience as an energy lawyer. She
previously served as general counsel of the U.S. Department of Energy and as deputy general counsel for environment and nuclear programs and Sam Walsh is an
associate at Hogan & Hartson, Electric Light & Power, January 2008 - February 2008, Federal Loan Guarantees; Will they give the U.S. climate response a needed
boost in 2008?, LN)
Almost three years ago in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress gave the U.S. Department of Energy authority to provide loan
guarantees for innovative energy technologies. This authority was seen by its supporters and Congress as a tool to jump-start
commercialization of climate-friendly energy technologies that have been demonstrated at the pilot scale or in other countries, but not
yet commercialized in the U.S. The loan guarantee program was stalled by intramural battles within Congress and between DOE and
Congress, the need to conduct a rulemaking to guide the exercise of this authority, and general caution by DOE. (DOE's past
experience with loan guarantees has not been good. The caution is understandable.) However, as we enter 2008, it appears that the
program is about to begin delivering on the promise of helping to bring important new greenhouse gas-reducing technologies to the
marketplace. The battles with Congress have abated; the rulemaking is finished, and the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act gives DOE
greatly increased loan guarantee funding. Particularly for the most costly technologies, most notably new nuclear power plants, some
questions about the structure and affordability of the program remain. Those questions will be front and center as the program unfolds
in the coming months, but hopes are high that the program is about to kick into high gear.




                                                                                                                                                                 30
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                              AT: Long Time Frame
( ) We only have a short window to do loan guarantees
PR Newswire 08 (UniStar Nuclear Energy Applauds Agreement Between Bechtel, Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking
SearchesBuilding and Construction Union;AFL-CIO Affiliate to Provide Exclusive Labor for Construction of Potential New Reactor
at Constellation Energy's Calvert Cliffs Site, April 15, 2008, LN)
Wallace noted that continued Congressional and DOE support is necessary to ensure timely implementation of a loan guarantee
program and the subsequent construction of new nuclear projects, along with the thousands of new jobs associated with that
construction. "It is essential that contracts be in place by November or we face the very real potential of significant delays, something
the nation cannot afford, and something the Administration and Congress did not intend or envision in advancing this legislation," said
Wallace.

*** Michael J. Wallace, vice chairman of Constellation Energy




                                                                                                                                      31
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                      AT: Accidents/Meltdowns
( ) Their evidence is hype- nuclear plants are safer than all other manufacturing industries
Kart 08 (Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, NUCLEAR ENERGY: THE 'NEW' ALTERNATIVE TO COAL?, Feb. 6, 2008,
http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/02/nuclear_energy_the_new_alterna.html)
Forrest J. Remick, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at Penn State University, calls nuclear power "very safe." The industrial
accident rate for nuclear plants is 14.6 times less than for all manufacturing industries, Remick asserts in an article on the Penn State
Web site. As well, no member of the public has been killed or injured from radiation during the nearly 50 years that commercial
nuclear plants have been operating in the U.S., according to Remick and others. Gard said the money spent on another Fermi plant would be better used to
help reduce energy demand in Michigan, by offering incentives for homes and businesses to install energy- efficient appliances and equipment, for instance. If forced
to choose, Gard said he'd rather see a coal plant that captures its carbon dioxide than a new nuclear plant generating more nuclear waste. For their part, Consumers
Energy officials have said it would take too long to permit a nuclear plant here before demand outpaces supply. The utility plans to install additional pollution controls
for a new coal plant in Bay County, leaving room for carbon capture technology in the future, said Jeff Holyfield, a Consumers spokesman. Last year, Cravens, of Long
Island, N.Y., published a book, with references, called "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy." She said most people don't realize that
a nuclear plant can't explode like a nuclear bomb, and the industry's two most prominent accidents weren't as catastrophic as many
people believe. According to a fact sheet from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the partial meltdown of the reactor core at Three
Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 "led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community." The
accident caused the NRC "to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight" and "had the effect of enhancing safety," the agency says.
The 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine was much worse, but involved a bad reactor design that is not used in the U.S., Cravens
and others argue. Twenty-eight workers died in the first four months after the Chernobyl accident, but the majority of 5 million
residents living in contaminated areas around the site received only small radiation doses, according to the NRC. Soot in the air from
coal generation, on the other hand, is estimated to cause more than 20,000 premature deaths a year in the U.S., according to a study
done by a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation from nuclear plants is a concern. But that's why the reactor at Fermi is
shielded by 10-12 inches of steel and about 12 feet of concrete, said John Austerberry, a DTE spokesman. The plant also has numerous backup water and power
systems to make sure the reactor operates safely. Adrian Heymer is a senior director at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group in Washington, D.C. After a 30-
year lull following the Three Mile Island incident, U.S. utilities have recently submitted 17 applications for as many as 30 new reactors around the country, Heymer
said. The NRC has revamped its licensing process, and the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for utilities to
construct new plants. DTE could be eligible for up to $300 million in incentives for Fermi 3. France already gets 80 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power. The U.S. gets more than half of its power from coal, and 20 percent from more than 100 nuclear
reactors. The next generation of U.S. nuclear plants will be even safer than the current fleet, Heymer said. The industry hopes to
move to an integrated spent fuel management system, with advanced recycling and processing. That would reduce waste and
eliminate generating a stream of plutonium during recycling "that makes things go bang," Heymer said. "The systems are very
reliable," he said of the next generation of nuclear plants. "You've got less to go wrong. They are simpler, with fewer components,
fewer moving components, so there's less to break down. Your probability of having an event that causes the fuel to melt is a lot
lower. ... "The probability of having a Three Mile Island type event today, with existing plants, is about 1 in 100,000. "The
probability on some of the new designs is close to 1 in 500 million."

( ) New plants will be safer and better- we aren’t responsible for existing plants
Schoen 07 (John Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Does nuclear power now make financial sense?,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/)
Proponents of new plants point to several changes that they say will be advantageous in getting the next generation of plants off the
drawing boards: Standardized designs: The existing fleet of U.S. power plants was largely custom-built, a one-at-a-time process that
all but insured delays in approval and construction, along with runaway costs. Today, with several standard designs already approved
by the NRC, builders of nuclear power plants say they are much better able to manage costs and maintain quality control. Large,
standardized components are expected to be built off-site and then delivered and assembled at the plant.
Improved safety features: New designs include ―passive safety‖ features; for example, ―gravity-fed‖ water supplies to cool a reactor
core if it overheats, reducing the risk of pump failure. In some cases, nuclear proponents say, design simplifications have reduced both
risk and cost.




                                                                                                                                                                      32
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                                        AT: Accidents/Meltdowns
( ) Risk of a nuclear accident is super low- only risk of 1 in 10,000 years
Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, ―Nuclear Energy Policy,‖ July 12, 2007,
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)
In terms of public health consequences, the safety record of the U.S. nuclear power industry in comparison with other major
commercial energy technologies has been excellent. During approximately 2,700 reactor-years of operation in the United States,15 the
only incident at a commercial nuclear power plant that might lead to any deaths or injuries to the public has been the Three Mile
Island accident, in which more than half the reactor core melted. Public exposure to radioactive materials released during that accident
is expected to cause fewer than five deaths (and perhaps none) from cancer over the subsequent 30 years. A study of 32,000 people living within 5 miles
of the reactor when the accident occurred found no significant increase in cancer rates through 1998, although the authors noted that some potential health effects ―cannot be definitively excluded.‖ The relatively small
amounts of radioactivity released by nuclear plants during normal operation are not generally believed to pose significant hazards, although some groups contend that routine emissions are unacceptably risky. There is
substantial scientific uncertainty about the level of risk posed by low levels of radiation exposure; as with many carcinogens and other hazardous substances, health effects can be clearly measured only at relatively high
exposure levels. In the case of radiation, the assumed risk of low-level exposure has been extrapolated mostly from health effects documented among persons exposed to high levels of radiation, particularly Japanese
                                The consensus among most safety experts is that a severe nuclear power plant accident in the United
survivors of nuclear bombing in World War II.

States is likely to occur less frequently than once every 10,000 reactor-years of operation. (For the current U.S. fleet of about 100
reactors, that rate would yield an average of one severe accident every 100 years.) These experts believe that most severe accidents
would have small public health impacts, and that accidents causing as many as 100 deaths would be much rarer than once every
10,000 reactor-years. On the other hand, some experts challenge the complex calculations that go into predicting such accident
frequencies, contending that accidents with serious public health consequences may be more frequent.

( ) Regulatory oversight solves
Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, ―Nuclear Energy Policy,‖ July 12, 2007,
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)
A fundamental concern in the nuclear regulatory debate is the performance of NRC in issuing and enforcing nuclear safety
regulations. The nuclear industry and its supporters have regularly complained that unnecessarily stringent and inflexibly enforced nuclear safety regulations have
burdened nuclear utilities and their customers with excessive costs. But many environmentalists, nuclear opponents, and other groups charge NRC with being too close
to the nuclear industry, a situation that they say has resulted in lax oversight of nuclear power plants and routine exemptions from safety requirements. Primary
responsibility for nuclear safety compliance lies with nuclear plant owners, who are required to find any problems with their plants
and report them to NRC. Compliance is also monitored directly by NRC, which maintains at least two resident inspectors at each
nuclear power plant. The resident inspectors routinely examine plant systems, observe the performance of reactor personnel, and
prepare regular inspection reports. For serious safety violations, NRC often dispatches special inspection teams to plant sites. In
response to congressional criticism, NRC has reorganized and overhauled many of its procedures. The Commission has moved toward
―risk-informed regulation,‖ in which safety enforcement is guided by the relative risks identified by detailed individual plant studies.
NRC‘s risk-informed reactor oversight system,inaugurated April 2, 2000, relies on a series of performance indicators to determine the
level of scrutiny that each reactor should receive.

( ) New safety measures have been implemented
Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, ―Nuclear Energy Policy,‖ July 12, 2007,
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States raised concern about nuclear power plant security. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 includes several reactor security provisions, including requirements to revise the security threats that nuclear plant guard
forces must be able to defeat, regular force-on-force security exercises at nuclear power plants, and the fingerprinting of nuclear
facility workers.

( ) The industry has learned from past mistakes- no new accidents
Stuckey 07 (Mike Stuckey, Senior News Editor, MSNBC, New nuclear power ‗wave‘ — or just a ripple?,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16272910/)
In the U.S., chastened nuclear operators focused on improving safety and efficiency at existing plants. They were successful: There
have been no notable U.S. accidents since Three Mile Island and the U.S. reactor fleet has produced at about 90 percent of licensed
capacity since 2001, up considerably from efficiency figures of the early 1980s. Nuclear plants today produce about 20 percent of the
electricity used in the United States. Industry improvements are ―an outgrowth, in all honesty, of the Three Mile Island accident,"
NEI's Kerekes said, "because the steps that were taken after that do a better job of sharing information in our industry and applying
best practices.‖

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                33
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                AT: Terrorist Attacks
( ) Tons of safety measures exist to solve the threat of terror attacks
Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, ―Nuclear Energy Policy,‖ July 12, 2007,
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)
Nuclear power plants have long been recognized as potential targets of terrorist attacks, and critics have long questioned the adequacy
of the measures required of nuclear plant operators to defend against such attacks. All commercial nuclear power plants licensed by
NRC have a series of physical barriers against access to vital reactor areas and are required to maintain a trained security force to
protect them. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, NRC began a ―top-to-bottom‖ review of its security requirements.
A key element in protecting nuclear plants is the requirement that simulated terrorist attacks, monitored by NRC, be carried out to test
the ability of the plant operator to defend against them. The severity of attacks to be prepared for are specified in the form of a ―design
basis threat‖ (DBT). After more than a year‘s review, on April 29, 2003, NRC changed the DBT to ―represent the largest reasonable
threat against which a regulated private guard force should be expected to defend under existing law.‖ The details of the revised DBT
were not released to the public. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required NRC to further revise the DBT based on an assessment of
terrorist threats, the potential for multiple coordinated attacks, possible suicide attacks, and other criteria. NRC approved the DBT
revision based on those requirements on January 29, 2007. The revised DBT does not require nuclear power plants to protect
themselves against deliberate aircraft attacks. NRC contended that nuclear facilities were already required to mitigate the effects of
large fires and explosions, no matter what the cause, and that active protection against airborne threats was being addressed by U.S.
military and other agencies. EPACT05 also requires NRC to conduct force-on-force security exercises at nuclear power plants every
three years (which was NRC‘s previous policy), authorizes firearms use by nuclear security personnel (preempting some state
restrictions), establishes federal security coordinators, and requires fingerprinting of nuclear facility workers.

( ) Nuclear plants are safe from terror attacks
Huber and Mills 05 (Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills, Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power, City Journal, Winter 2005,
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html)
How worried should we really be in 2005 that accidents or attacks might release and disperse a nuclear power plant‘s radioactive fuel?
Not very. Our civilian nuclear industry has dramatically improved its procedures and safety-related hardware since 1979. Several
thousand reactor-years of statistics since Three Mile Island clearly show that these power plants are extraordinarily reliable in normal
operation. And uranium‘s combination of power and super-density makes the fuel less of a terror risk, not more, at least from an
engineering standpoint. It‘s easy to ―overbuild‖ the protective walls and containment systems of nuclear facilities, since—like the
pyramids—the payload they‘re built to shield is so small. Protecting skyscrapers is hard; no builder can afford to erect a hundred times
more wall than usable space. Guaranteeing the integrity of a jumbo jet‘s fuel tanks is impossible; the tanks have to fly. Shielding a
nuclear plant‘s tiny payload is easy—just erect more steel, pour more concrete, and build tougher perimeters. In fact, it‘s a safety
challenge that we have already met. Today‘s plants split atoms behind super-thick layers of steel and concrete; future plants would
boast thicker protection still. All the numbers, and the strong consensus in the technical community, reinforce the projections made
two decades ago: it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a serious release of nuclear materials from a U.S. reactor.

( ) Reactors are safe and terrorists won’t target them
Johnston 08 (Rob Johnston, Jan. 9, 2008, Ten myths about nuclear power, http://www.spiked-
online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/)
Since 11 September 2001, several studies have examined the possibility of attacks by a large aircraft on reactor containment buildings.
The US Department of Energy sponsored an independent computer-modelling study of the effects of a fully fuelled Boeing 767-400
hitting the reactor containment vessel. Under none of the possible scenarios was containment breached (21). Only the highly
specialised US ‗bunker busting‘ ordnance would be capable – after several direct strikes – of penetrating the amount of reinforced
concrete that surrounds reactors. And besides, terrorists have already demonstrated that they prefer large, high visibility, soft targets
with maximum human casualties (as in the attacks on New York, London, Madrid and Mumbai) rather than well-guarded, isolated,
low-population targets.




                                                                                                                                        34
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                   AT: Nuclear Waste
( ) Nuclear waste is not dangerous- its merely a policy issue
Holt 07 (Mark Holt is head of the Energy and Minerals Section of the Congressional Research Service‘s Resources, Science, and
Industry Division since 1997, ―Council on Foreign Relations Symposium: American Nuclear Energy in a Globalized Economy,
Session II: What Is the Investment Climate for Nuclear Energy?‖ Council on Foreign Relations, June 15, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13717/council_on_foreign_relations_symposium.html)
I think the Keystone report they do make the point that most experts do not see it as a major physical problem dealing with the
physical waste -- at least in the short term. So if there's no Yucca Mountain, if Yucca Mountain is delayed for decades even, that's a
relatively short period of time as far as interim storage goes. It's not really a technical and safety issue, but the concern about surface
storage being permanent, meaning -- we talked also last night about the millions of years. Once you get into that time frame,
obviously, surface storage is not nearly as secure as a repository. So that would be a concern there. But as far as the near-term
policymaking issue, it often is more of a legal and regulatory problem than perhaps a real physical safety problem.

( ) There is no waste- it’ll be reprocessed
Freeman 07 (Marsha, Debunking the Myths About Nuclear Energy, Feb. 2, 2007,
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3405_nuclear_myths.html)
A: There is no such thing as nuclear "waste." This is a term used in popular parlance by anti-nuclear ideologues to frighten the public,
and its elected representatives. More than 95% of the fission products created in commercial power plants can be reprocessed and
recycled. The spent fuel from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, which has operated over 40 years, can produce energy equal to
130 million barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal. In reprocessing, fissionable uranium-235 and plutonium are separated from the
high-level fission products. The plutonium can be used to make mixed-oxide fuel, which is currently used to produce electrical power
in 35 European nuclear reactors. The fissionable uranium in the spent fuel can also be reused. From the remaining 3% of high-level
radioactive products, valuable medical and other isotopes can be extracted.




                                                                                                                                          35
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                             AT: Uranium Shortages
( ) No possibly of running out of uranium
Johnston 08 (Rob Johnston, Jan. 9, 2008, Ten myths about nuclear power, http://www.spiked-
online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/)
According to Greenpeace, uranium reserves are ‗relatively limited‘ (1) and last week the Nuclear Consultation Working Group
claimed that a significant increase in nuclear generating capacity would reduce reliable supplies from 50 to 12 years (2). In fact, there
is 600 times more uranium in the ground than gold and there is as much uranium as tin. There has been no major new uranium
exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years. Geological
estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years‘ supply at current demand (3). Modern
reactors can use thorium as a fuel and convert it into uranium – and there is three times more thorium in the ground than uranium (4).
Uranium is the only fuel which, when burnt, generates more fuel. Not only existing nuclear warheads, but also the uranium and
plutonium in radioactive waste can be reprocessed into new fuel, which former UK chief scientist Sir David King estimates could
supply 60 per cent of Britain‘s electricity to 2060 (5). In short, there is more than enough uranium, thorium and plutonium to supply
the entire world‘s electricity for several hundred years.




                                                                                                                                      36
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                      AT: Yucca Bad
( ) Even if Yucca opened it wouldn’t be until 2017
Holt 07 (Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, ―Nuclear Energy Policy,‖ July 12, 2007,
http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/nuclear-energy-policy/)
Disposal of highly radioactive waste has been one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear power. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (P.L. 97-425), as amended in 1987, requires DOE to conduct a detailed physical characterization of Yucca Mountain in
Nevada as a permanent underground repository for high-level waste. DOE plans to submit a license application for the Yucca
Mountain repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 30, 2008. The opening of the repository is now scheduled
for 2017.

( ) Yucca wouldn’t open for 9 years
Motavalli 04 (Jim Motavalli A Nuclear Phoenix?: Concern about Climate Change is Spurring an Atomic Renaissance, E The
Environmental Magazine, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780)
Meanwhile, plans to relocate America‘s nuclear plant waste to a secure federal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada are slowly inching
forward. The facility is designed to house 77,000 tons of nuclear waste, including the 50,000 tons already waiting for storage at
reactor sites in dozens of states. The project director, Edward Sproat, said that a 2017 start date is now unlikely, and that the waste
facility may never be built without increased Congressional funding.

( ) Yucca is totally safe
Hiserodt 08 (Ed Hiserodt. The New American. NUCLEAR WASTE: Not A Problem: Feb 18, 2008, ProQuest)
Yucca is now scheduled to begin receiving spent fuel in 2017, making it possible that some scientists and engineers will have spent
their entire careers studying and constructing the repository. (In comparison, it took engineers and workers seven years to construct
the 31-mile tunnel beneath the English Channel.) Yet even the 2017 start date is in jeopardy due to opposition from anti-nuclear
activists and those who are swayed by their rhetoric. Somehow we're expected to believe that rains will suddenly come to the desert,
with water rushing through 2,500 feet of solid rock, dissolving the stainless steel shells of the glassified waste, leaching radioactive
materials from the glass, and then gushing through another 1,500 feet of rock to the water table. Fast forward 100,000 years where
some civilization with the technology to drill wells through several thousands of feet of rock will drink that water - water that would
be only a fraction as radioactive as well water in parts of Maine or in health spas all over Europe. As noted, in much less than 100,000
years - 400 to 900 years to be precise - the waste will be no more radioactive that the natural ores that were mined for nuclear fuel. To
even imagine that a stainless-steel canister encasing glassified wastes and stored in a dry environment that has been studied in every
particular for over 30 years would deteriorate seems a foolish prediction when there are innumerable cases of unprotected iron
fasteners and structural members dating from the Middle Ages that are still serviceable after hundreds of years of exposure to wear,
tear, and the elements.




                                                                                                                                      37
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                   AT: Proliferation
( ) Nuclear power reduces the risks of proliferation
Johnston 08 (Rob Johnston, Jan. 9, 2008, Ten myths about nuclear power, http://www.spiked-
online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/)
More nuclear plants (in Britain and elsewhere) would actually reduce weapons proliferation. Atomic warheads make excellent reactor
fuel; decommissioned warheads (containing greatly enriched uranium or plutonium) currently provide about 15 per cent of world
nuclear fuel (19). Increased demand for reactor fuel would divert such warheads away from potential terrorists. Nuclear build is
closely monitored by the IAEA, which polices anti-proliferation treaties.

( ) Nuclear power is not the cause of prolif
Freeman 07 (Marsha, Debunking the Myths About Nuclear Energy, Feb. 2, 2007,
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3405_nuclear_myths.html)
Q: But if the United States goes ahead now with reprocessing, doesn't making this technology available increase the risk that other
nations will develop nuclear weapons? A: No nation has ever developed a nuclear weapon from a civilian nuclear power plant. If a
nation has the intention to develop nuclear weapons, it must obtain the specific technology to do so. Israel is an example of a nation
that has no civilian nuclear power plants, but has developed nuclear weapons. The nonproliferation argument—that controlling
technology will reduce the risk of weapons proliferation—is an historically demonstrable false one. Nations make decisions based on
their security and military requirements, not on which technologies are available.




                                                                                                                                    38
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                AT: Short Life Span
( ) Nuclear plants last a long time
Schoen 07 (John Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Does nuclear power now make financial sense?,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/)
Owners of existing plants also have seen their profits rise, thanks to sharply higher output and fewer shutdowns for maintenance or
safety problems. The average nuclear plant is now online and producing electricity 90 percent of the time, up from an average of 55
percent in 1980. Since fuel represents a fraction of the cost of operating a nuclear plant, the soaring cost of fossil fuel — especially
natural gas — has further tipped the scale in favor of nuclear. And it turns out nuclear plants have a longer life span than many
originally assumed. Plant licenses were originally granted for 40 years, based on the standard accounting payback schedule used for
conventional power plants when the first commercial reactors were built in the late 1950s. Now, as those original 40-year licenses
expire, nuclear plant owners today are applying for — and getting — 20-year extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
―We‘ve gone from the assumption that this was all going to have to be decommissioned to the assumption that that everybody is going
to get a license extension. That‘s huge,‖ said Christine Tezak, an energy industry analyst at Stanford Group in Washington, D.C. ―This
(nuclear) capacity was supposed to go out of the national portfolio and now everyone saying. ‗We‘re not going unplug what we
have.‘‖




                                                                                                                                     39
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                        AT: Defaults
( ) Costs of default will be covered by power companies
Andrews and Wald 07 (EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MATTHEW L. WALD, Energy Bill Aids Expansion of Atomic Power, July
31, 2007, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
Mr. Domenici, who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees, has
argued that there is no need for limits on the loan volume because power companies will be required to pay an upfront fee to cover the
estimated cost of the guarantee. In essence, the ―credit subsidy‖ payments would be used as a kind of insurance premium that could be
used to cover the cost of any defaulted loan. ―It is very clear that this is a self-financing program,‖ Mr. Domenici told James Nussle,
Mr. Bush‘s nominee to become the White House budget director, at Mr. Nussle‘s confirmation hearing last week. ―There should
already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund.‖

( ) Any financial risk would be covered by companies
Platts 08 (DOE gets approval for nuclear energy loan guarantees, Jan. 7, 2008,
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/Resources/News%20Features/growth/index.xml)
Constellation's Wallace stressed that the risks of loan guarantees would be captured in subsidy costs that are paid for by the applicants
and not by taxpayers. He said many in the industry want the calculations for the subsidy costs to be partly spelled out in the
solicitation DOE issues to invite applications. The costs should be further evaluated when the actual loan applications are submitted,
he said. "We see this as being an iterative process, as DOE actually evaluates the loan applications with various features represented in
different projects."

*Michael Wallace, executive vice president of Constellation Energy and chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy

( ) New plant designs decrease risk of default
Mufson 07 (Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, Nuclear Power Primed for Comeback, Oct. 8, 2007,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701324_pf.html)
The loan guarantees have become a major battlefront. As the industry points out that current limits on the program make the
guarantees meaningless, and higher amounts alarm budget officials, the Office of Management and Budget needs to calculate the risk
of default to account for the cost of the guarantees. Based on past performance of nuclear plants, that cost might be awfully steep.
"From a myopic American point of view, it is not a good record," said Crane, NRG Energy's chief executive. "But the record is 20 or
30 years old. I don't know a business today that wants to be judged on what it was doing in the '70s." Even if every plant could get
loan guarantees for 80 percent of its cost, Crane said, projects would each require more than $1 billion in equity. "That's a lot of
money at risk," he said. Industry executives say new technology makes better performance more likely. For example, to reduce the
chance of an uncontrolled accident, Westinghouse's new nuclear plants use a passive design, rather than electronic or manual devices,
for pumps that release cooling water in an emergency. Nuclear reactor builders also say that they could cut costs and reduce licensing
delays by using standard designs rather than tailoring plants to each customer. Four Westinghouse reactors are being built in China,
which U.S. firms hope will resolve design difficulties. Plants built recently in Japan have been cheaper than those built in the United
States 20 or 30 years ago.




                                                                                                                                      40
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                           AT: Not-In-My-Back-Yard
( ) Texas will do it
Dyer 08 (R.A. Dyer - Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 26, 2008, Texas may lead nuclear power surge,
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/may/26/texas_may_lead_nuclear_power_surge/)
With eight power plants on the drawing board, Texas could lead the way in an American renaissance of nuclear power, according to
industry leaders and some policymakers. Four power companies — New Jersey-based NRG Energy, Amarillo Power, Dallas-based
Luminant and Chicago-based Exelon — have proposed building nuclear plants in Texas. That would increase the reactors in the state
from four to 12 and more than triple its nuclear output. It‘s likely that some of the plants will never get built, and the permit process
and construction would take about a decade. But whether Texas ends up with two more reactors or eight, it is clear that a nuclear
awakening is under way. Largely spurred by new loan guarantees and other federal incentives, plus a new regulatory scheme in
Washington, companies are floating plans and partnering with overseas firms on construction and design.




                                                                                                                                       41
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                       AT: Coal Good
( ) Not unique- coal is already declining
Murawski 08 (John Murawski, Staff Writer, Nuclear, not coal, is plan at Progress, The News & Observer, Feb. 19, 2008,
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/951200.html)
Only three years ago, nuclear power was an iffy proposition, stigmatized by the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island.
Spurred by new federal incentives for new nuclear plants, the NRC has received license applications from five power companies and
expects more than a dozen applications this year. Meanwhile, at least 50 coal-fired power plants were denied, delayed or withdrawn in
this country last year.

( ) Companies already shifting away from coal in favor of nuclear
Rawlins 06 (Wade Rawlins, Staff Writer, News & Observer, Surge in nuclear power likely,
http://www.newsobserver.com/1156/story/394089.html)
As Progress officials look at what kind of regulations would probably apply to a new power plant built to start running about 2015, a
nuclear plant's lack of air emissions holds appeal. The company will make a final decision in about two years. "The higher the
likelihood of carbon regulations, the less likely you are to build a coal plant and the more likely you are to build a nuclear plant," said
Bill Johnson, president and chief operating officer of Progress Energy, which has its headquarters in Raleigh. "We are planning as if
there will be a carbon-constrained future." Such constraints are already forming. In December, for example, seven northeastern states
reached a regional agreement to cut 10 percent of carbon emissions from power plants by 2019. It may presage similar curbs on
carbon in other parts of the country or an eventual federal cap.




                                                                                                                                         42
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                                                Answers to Off-Case Arguments




                                                                                        Disadvantages




                                                Agenda Bad 2AC- Link Turns
( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are super contentious- it sparks huge political battles in Congress
National Journal 05 (National Journal's CongressDaily, May 16, 2005 Senate Panel Slowed By Nuke Aid Talk, LN)
The idea sounded simple enough for a Congress controlled by business-friendly Republicans: Utility companies said they could help
offset the high cost of oil by putting a greater reliance on nuclear energy, if only the federal government could offer incentives to
limit the risks of building and operating new reactors. But a move in that direction is now stalled in the intersection between what
is politically palatable and economically feasible, leaving the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee uncertain how to proceed as it tries to
wrap up work on comprehensive energy legislation. "Everything is on the table," one exasperated committee aide said late last week, noting that new ideas are still
welcome until the committee starts marking up nuclear issues next week. The nuclear knot is not the only issue holding up the committee. It is also trying to figure out,
among other things, how to settle disputes between states and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over where to allow liquefied natural gas import terminals
and relicensing hydroelectric dams. But the reactor riddle is particularly hard to solve because of the varied reasons driving the opposition. Some foes worry that
financial incentives will deepen the federal deficit, others object on environmental grounds, and still others worry that the reactors will
become new terrorist targets. There is also the question of where to store nuclear waste for thousands of years. The flip side of the argument is that if new
reactors are not built, the cost of electricity might become even more tied to the price of oil as aging reactors leave the power grid and are taken out of service. A
nuclear reactor has not been ordered in the United States since the 1970s. Without incentives such as liability limits and tax restructuring, utility executives say they
cannot afford to invest in new reactors and move through the complex and expensive regulatory process. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici
and Idaho Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo met with a group of nuclear energy officials in March to begin deciphering what incentives might be feasible.
Weeks of work by the committee staff have not yet led to concrete answers . Senators included loan guarantees in energy legislation in the last
Congress, despite the combined opposition from fiscal conservatives and lawmakers who are concerned about nuclear waste. Those
guarantees were dropped during conference talks with the House in favor of production tax credits that would not kick in until a nuclear reactor comes on line. That
approach would not address the issue of companies taking on huge financial risks with no return during the years of construction and licensing hearings that predate the
production and sale of energy from the reactor. That attempt to write a comprehensive national energy bill failed, leading to this year's effort. But even if the Senate
does find a solution, the fight is far from over. The energy bill passed by the House last month does not include the nuclear incentives, so a conference committee would
have to settle the question. President Bush has instructed the Energy Department to work with Congress to offer federal risk insurance to mitigate costs incurred by
bureaucratic delays in the licensing of new nuclear plants once they have been built. An aide said the committee continues to consider insurance, loan guarantees and
production tax credits, along with the less likely option of investment tax credits to cover up-front construction costs. Utility executives say Congress should give the
nuclear industry flexibility to choose what combination of incentives would be best for them. "It's not a question of one incentive over the other," said Mitch Singer, a
spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the largest trade association for the industry. "We would like to see a mosaic of financial incentives in there." Nuclear
energy advocates, though, continue to face some stiff political opposition from lawmakers who remain concerned over continued
waste problems in some states, even though both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate energy committee support the
industry. The concern over nuclear waste has been further exacerbated by delays in the Yucca Mountain national repository plan.

( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are contentious in Congress
Choe 05 (Stan Choe, The Charlotte Observer, August 4, 2005, Are we ready for a nuclear comeback?, LN)
President Bush has been a champion for the nuclear industry, becoming the first president to visit a nuclear plant in 26 years when he
recently stopped by a Maryland plant. "There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation,"
Bush said at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, according to Bloomberg News. "It is time for this country to start building
nuclear power plants again." The battle is most pitched on Capitol Hill, where Congress is hashing out an energy bill that could
help a nascent nuclear resurgence explode or fade. The Senate's version, passed in June, is packed with incentives to get the nuclear
industry rolling, such as a subsidy for new reactors and loan guarantees for their construction. The House's version doesn't include
those packages. A 2003 study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology advocates combining the ideas of nuclear plants' proponents
and opponents. The country, it said, needs more nuclear energy, but it also needs more renewables, such as wind, and more
conservation.

( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public
Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535)
According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times, 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59
percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. And at a June conference, sponsored by the Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research, a free-market think tank in New York City, doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure
financing for nuclear power projects. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued, the political climate
for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change," the institute warned in a
report on the conference.

                                                                                                                                                                      43
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                      Agenda Bad 2AC- Link Turns
( ) Loan guarantees are way contentious in Congress
Coleman 03 (Michael Coleman, Journal Washington Bureau, October 12, 2003, Energy Policy Proves Divisive, Albuquerque Journal,
LN)
Domenici managed to avoid similar controversy over his beloved nuclear power incentives by not insisting that Congress adopt
controversial loan guarantees for construction of nuclear power plants. Instead, he has taken the less contentious approach of seeking
tax credits for the developers. Domenici, who helped steer Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment when he was Senate
Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s, said his new post produces even more headaches than balancing a federal budget. But it has
its rewards, as well. Domenici said he enjoys the give-and-take with fellow members of Congress, and feels good about doing
something to make America less dependent on the turbulent Middle East. No one -- including Domenici -- ever said it would be easy.
"There are obviously a lot of views about energy problems in America," Domenici said.




                                                                                                                                   44
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                      Agenda Good 2AC- Link Turns
( ) Loan guarantees for nuclear power are bipartisan
Nuclear News 08 (USEC to apply for DOE loan guarantee, Feb. 2008, LN)
USEC Inc. Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches intends to pursue a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for the
construction of the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio. The company said it expects to submit an application for the
guarantee when the DOE invites nuclear projects to apply. USEC on December 27 commended Congress and the Bush administration
for supporting the nuclear renaissance through the loan guarantee program administered by the DOE, which was included in the
omnibus appropriations legislation (H.R. 2764) signed on December 26 by President George W. Bush. The legislation includes loan
guarantee authority for up to $38.5 billion for energy projects, including $18.5 billion for nuclear power facilities and $2 billion for
advanced nuclear facilities for the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle. These amounts are the maximum loan guarantees available and
are not direct loans or subsidies for any energy project. The company also applauded the bipartisan federal recognition of the
contribution that nuclear power makes in providing clean and efficient electricity for the United States. "The rebuilding of the
industrial infrastructure to construct and fuel a new generation of nuclear power plants is an important step toward energy security,"
USEC said, adding, "Nuclear power is a preferred path for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while providing reliable baseload
electric generation."

( ) Congress supports loan guarantees for nuclear power
E & E News 08 (Environment and Energy Publishing, NUCLEAR POWER: Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca,
expansion of nuclear in U.S., Jan. 24, 2008, LN)
Jim Curtiss: Well, I think there are a number of dimensions of that. The financial community, in terms of funding new nuclear, has in
recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently. Thirty years ago I don't think you would have had that kind
of view right after Three Mile Island until we saw the improved operation of the plants. But from a financial standpoint, the ability to
bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants. Of the 18 companies that have announced plans
to go through the permitting process for 32 plants none of those companies has yet decided to build a plant. So there's a lot of attention
with Wall Street talking with the industry about the importance of some of the things that Congress has done, the establishment of the
loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. The Department of Energy recently published
guidance on how they're going to implement that program that's very positive and has a loan guarantee program that will provide for
the risk support that we're going to need as we get back into nuclear construction. The U.S. Congress just in the appropriations
process, here before they left town in December, authorized $18.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects. So there's a lot of
support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward.

( ) Loan guarantees popular in Congress
Daily Record 07 (USEC applauds Congress, Dec. 28, 2007, LN)
USEC Inc. commended Congress and the administration for their strong support for the renaissance of the nuclear power industry
through the loan guarantee program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy, included in the omnibus appropriations
legislation (H.R. 2764) signed Wednesday by President George W. Bush. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to
$38.5 billion in energy projects, including $18.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities. USEC, a Bethesda-based
global energy company, intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio.

( ) Plan popular with interest groups, unions and Democrats
EnergyWashington Week 08 (NEI Touts Union Support, Newsroom Notes, May 16, 2008, LN)
The president of a major labor union--citing nuclear energy as a carbon-free technology--says the group's "primary mission" this
Congress is to win an expansion of the federal loan guarantee program for nuclear energy and other clean-energy technologies to help
"kick start" a resurgence of the nuclear industry, according to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) news release. Support for nuclear
power from a major Democratic constituency -- the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department -- is significant in light of
upcoming debates over federal climate change legislation. The role of nuclear energy in combating climate change is controversial,
supported by some as a clean energy source because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but opposed by others because of nuclear waste
and other concerns. In a May 6 speech at the NEI annual "nuclear energy assembly" May 5-7 in Chicago, IL, union department
president Mark Ayers said the current federal loan guarantee program of $18.5 billion for new nuclear projects "is not sufficient in
either duration or dollars." Stating that "more and more interest groups are recognizing the need for nuclear energy in combating
global warming trends," Ayers said that during this Congress, "Our primary mission is to secure an extension of the loan guarantee
program to 'kick start' the renewal of nuclear power generation in this country."

                                                                                                                                       45
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                               Agenda Good 2AC- Link Turns
( ) Nuclear power to offset carbon emissions is overwhelmingly popular with the American public- prefer
our specific evidence
NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute, Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy
Technologies, Nov. 5, 2007, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/eightoutoften/)
Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help jump-start construction of carbon-free energy
technologies, according to a new national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans believe ―it is
appropriate for the federal government to provide some financial assistance to jump-start nuclear, solar, wind and other carbon-free
energy technologies in order to meet the national clean-air and carbon reduction goals and reduce the cost to consumers of building
the facilities.‖ Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose, and three percent do not have an opinion. The new
telephone survey was conducted Oct. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. A majority of
Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns, the survey found. Asked to choose which of four issues seem ―most
important,‖ 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. Energy security
was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents, while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. ―Given the priority status that Americans
affix to air quality concerns, it‘s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies,‖ said Bisconti
Research President Ann Bisconti. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of
new electric-generating facilities. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits ―as an incentive to companies to build solar,
wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants.‖ Only 20 percent disapprove. Similarly, 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan
guarantees for companies ―that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces
greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities.‖ Again, only 20 percent disapprove. The survey found
that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. Seventy-five percent of Americans agree
that electric companies should prepare now so that new nuclear plants could be built if needed within the next decade. In a national
survey conducted last April, 71 percent agreed. In the new survey, 62 percent of Americans agree ―we should definitely build more
nuclear power plants.‖ In last April‘s survey, 56 percent of respondents agreed. In the new survey, 59 percent said that, if a new power
plant were needed to supply electricity, it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is
already operating. Last April, 66 percent agreed.

( ) Nuclear super popular with the public
WNN 08 (World Nuclear News, April 29, 2008, Opinion favours nuclear, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-
Opinion_favours_nuclear_2904089.html)
Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia, while US
citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. A survey of
1000 US citizens carried out by Bisconti Research and published by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) found broad support for
possible future nuclear construction projects, strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants, and even
stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanced-
design nuclear power plants. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon
energy sources including nuclear, hydro and renewable energy, with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits
should be used to help push the development of such technologies. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing
now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade, if needed, while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more
nuclear power plants. Overall, 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA, with 33% opposing it, with the
proportion of people "strongly" in favour, at 28%, double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear.

( ) PLAN HAS WIDESPREAD POLITICAL SUPPORT—BIPART SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL
EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR POWER
NEW YORK TIMES 2007 ("Energy Bill Aids Expansion of Atomic Power" July 31, 2007;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html)
Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in
loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion. The biggest champion of the loan guarantees is Senator Pete V.
Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee and one of the nuclear industry's strongest supporters in Congress.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and the energy bill's author, has long argued that nuclear power plants do not need federal loan guarantees. Mr.
Bingaman said that the industry was over-interpreting the provision and that it would provide loan guarantees for only the most innovative power plants. But the
provision has the potential to considerably expand the nuclear industry, which plans to build 28 new reactors at an estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece.
And while the nuclear industry would be the biggest beneficiary, the provision could also set the stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for power plants that use
"clean coal" technology and renewable fuels. The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from
environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried about global
warming and dependence on foreign oil, support some expansion of nuclear power.
                                                                                                                                                                        46
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                  Elections 2AC- Plan Popular
( ) Nuclear power to offset carbon emissions is overwhelmingly popular with the American public- prefer
our specific evidence
NEI 07 (Nuclear Energy Institute, Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Jump-Start Carbon-Free Energy
Technologies, Nov. 5, 2007, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/eightoutoften/)
Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help jump-start construction of carbon-free energy
technologies, according to a new national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans believe ―it is
appropriate for the federal government to provide some financial assistance to jump-start nuclear, solar, wind and other carbon-free
energy technologies in order to meet the national clean-air and carbon reduction goals and reduce the cost to consumers of building
the facilities.‖ Only 18 percent of those surveyed do not support the use of federal incentives for this purpose, and three percent do not have an opinion. The new
telephone survey was conducted Oct. 19-22 by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. A majority of
Americans rank the threat of climate change and air pollution as top energy-related concerns, the survey found. Asked to choose which of four issues seem ―most
important,‖ 57 percent of Americans named global warming among the top two concerns and 56 percent named air pollution as a first or second choice. Energy security
was ranked first or second by 42 percent of respondents, while economic growth was selected by 40 percent of those surveyed. ―Given the priority status that Americans
affix to air quality concerns, it‘s not surprising that they voice such high levels of support for government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies,‖ said Bisconti
Research President Ann Bisconti. Americans voiced strong support for some of the specific mechanisms that Congress has approved to help stimulate construction of
new electric-generating facilities. The survey showed that 78 percent of Americans approve of government tax credits ―as an incentive to companies to build solar,
wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants.‖ Only 20 percent disapprove. Similarly, 76 percent of Americans approve of federal loan
guarantees for companies ―that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants or other energy technology that reduces
greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities.‖ Again, only 20 percent disapprove. The survey found
that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power plants remains strong. Seventy-five percent of Americans agree
that electric companies should prepare now so that new nuclear plants could be built if needed within the next decade. In a national
survey conducted last April, 71 percent agreed. In the new survey, 62 percent of Americans agree ―we should definitely build more
nuclear power plants.‖ In last April‘s survey, 56 percent of respondents agreed. In the new survey, 59 percent said that, if a new power
plant were needed to supply electricity, it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is
already operating. Last April, 66 percent agreed.

( ) Nuclear super popular with the public
WNN 08 (World Nuclear News, April 29, 2008, Opinion favours nuclear, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-
Opinion_favours_nuclear_2904089.html)
Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia, while US
citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. A survey of
1000 US citizens carried out by Bisconti Research and published by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) found broad support for
possible future nuclear construction projects, strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants, and even
stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanced-
design nuclear power plants. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon
energy sources including nuclear, hydro and renewable energy, with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits
should be used to help push the development of such technologies. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing
now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade, if needed, while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more
nuclear power plants. Overall, 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA, with 33% opposing it, with the
proportion of people "strongly" in favour, at 28%, double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear.




                                                                                                                                                                        47
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                     Elections 2AC- Plan Unpopular
( ) Plan is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public
Daks 07 (Martin C. Daks, NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear, Oct. 1, 2007,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535)
According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times, 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59
percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. And at a June conference, sponsored by the Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research, a free-market think tank in New York City, doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure
financing for nuclear power projects. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued, the political climate
for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change," the institute warned in a
report on the conference.




                                                                                                                                   48
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                          AT: Obama Solves the Aff
( ) Obama wouldn’t do the aff- he thinks current loan guarantees are enough
Krause and Higgins 08 (REINHARDT KRAUSE AND SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, New Nuclear Plants
Are On Their Way, With Federal Help, June 20, 2008,
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20080620)
There is an assumption that the government will offer more loan guarantees, Hornick says. Not so fast, says Jason Grumen, chief
energy policy adviser to the Obama campaign. "(Obama) believes that the loan guarantees in the current act were substantial and
sufficient," Grumen said. "He is eager to make sure that the (DOE) acts efficiently to move forward with those loan guarantees but he
believes that nuclear power has received more than fair treatment in recent legislation."




                                                                                                                                   49
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                        Biz Con 2AC
( ) Link turn- Nuclear power is net more predictable than the status quo
Murawski 08 (John Murawski, Staff Writer, Nuclear, not coal, is plan at Progress, The News & Observer, Feb. 19, 2008,
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/951200.html)
As Progress Energy looks for new power sources amid shifting environmental rules, the Raleigh utility has decided that coal is out and
nuclear is in. The Raleigh electric utility said Monday that it would apply today for a federal permit to add a second nuclear reactor at
the Shearon Harris plant in Wake County within a decade. Chief executive Bill Johnson said that a new coal-burning power plant is
"off the table" for the foreseeable future. "We need to prepare for 10, 20, 30 years out," Johnson said. "The best option right now is
advanced nuclear." Its decision favoring nuclear energy is driven largely by uncertainties in public policy. Legislators and
regulators increasingly are focusing on the environmental threat posed by global warming. Penalties on carbon-dioxide emissions are
widely expected from Congress, a policy that could significantly increase the operating costs of coal plants by taxing coal's byproduct:
the greenhouse gas that is blamed for overheating the planet.

( ) Link turn- Businesses want the gov’t to act on nuclear power
Spencer 07 (Jack Spencer is the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies, ―Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,‖ The Heritage Foundation, Nov.15, 2007,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm)Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and
environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric
emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their
dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However, the commercial nuclear
energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace nuclear power fully, despite significant regulatory relief
and economic incentives. This reluctance is not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk.
Instead, investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in encouraging growth in
the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to
flourish in the long term. They have already lost billions of dollars because of bad public policy.




                                                                                                                                        50
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                             Spending 2AC/Coercion
( ) We control the internal link to the economy- c/a our advantage

( ) No Link- Costs of default will be covered by power companies
Andrews and Wald 07 (EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MATTHEW L. WALD, Energy Bill Aids Expansion of Atomic Power, July
31, 2007, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
Mr. Domenici, who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees, has
argued that there is no need for limits on the loan volume because power companies will be required to pay an upfront fee to cover the
estimated cost of the guarantee. In essence, the ―credit subsidy‖ payments would be used as a kind of insurance premium that could be
used to cover the cost of any defaulted loan. ―It is very clear that this is a self-financing program,‖ Mr. Domenici told James Nussle,
Mr. Bush‘s nominee to become the White House budget director, at Mr. Nussle‘s confirmation hearing last week. ―There should
already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund.‖

( ) Link Turn- corporations pay the federal government to receive loan guarantees
Bowman 08 (FRANK L. (SKIP) BOWMAN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, Remarks at the
Nuclear Energy Assembly, Facing Facts, MAY 6, 2008, Nuclear Energy Institute,
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/bowmanspeech_050508/)
Our critics, of course, attack the loan guarantee program as a subsidy for nuclear power? What nonsense. A subsidy is when the
federal government makes a payment to a private party. The energy loan guarantee program works the other way around. The private
parties make payments to the federal government in order to receive the loan guarantees. That‘s not a subsidy. The cost of this
program – every penny of it -- will, under the law and the implementing regulations, be paid by the industry. Not one taxpayer dollar.

( ) Link Turn- Loan guarantees for nuclear power will save us from greater costs in the future
Miller 07 (William H. Miller is a professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute at the
University of Missouri and at the University's research reactor, Financing the next generation of nuclear
power plants, Sept. 23, 2007, http://publicutilities.utah.gov/news/financingthenextgenerationofnuclearpowerplants.pdf)
Nuclear power, with global warming and energy security at stake, needs $5 billion in government loan guarantees for each of the first
few nuclear power plants to be built in the United States. Providing this credit support would help prevent greater costs down the road
— in response to electricity shortages, ever-increasing reliance on imported oil and environmental harm from the emissions of fossil-
fuel plants. Notwithstanding charges by anti-nuclear groups like Greenpeace and Public Citizen that loan guarantees are a subsidy to
the nuclear industry, the guarantees, if managed properly, will cost taxpayers nothing. The loan-guarantee program is designed to be
self-financing, with companies responsible for paying an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. The benefits from
loan guarantees would be huge. To meet growing demand for clean energy, 17 electrical companies are gearing up to build 33
nuclear power plants using standardized designs and advanced technology. Although improvements have been made in the reactor
licensing process and project management to eliminate unnecessary delays, the first few plants will cost more than the rest, because it
has been many years since construction of a nuclear plant in the United States, and the companies that build the first new plants will
face extra expenses that subsequent companies will not have to bear. For example, there are "first-of-a-kind" design and engineering
costs. And there is no absolute assurance that hitches in licensing and construction might not happen, causing project costs to rise,
much as they did when today's nuclear plants were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Recognizing this, Congress in the 2005 Energy
Policy Act authorized guarantees to new nuclear plants to provide some extra surety. Without loan guarantees, banks would not
provide companies with the low-cost financing they need. The guarantees will enable nuclear plant operators to obtain financing at
favorable rates. This directly benefits consumers because it will save about a third of the cost of electricity from a new plant. Nuclear
power, however, will have to compete for the same loan guarantees with other clean-energy technologies, including methods for
sequestering carbon emissions from coal plants, designing more fuel-efficient vehicles and using switch grass and other cellulosic
sources to make ethanol.




                                                                                                                                      51
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                Ext- No Default Risk
( ) New plant designs decrease risk of default
Mufson 07 (Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, Nuclear Power Primed for Comeback, Oct. 8, 2007,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701324_pf.html)
The loan guarantees have become a major battlefront. As the industry points out that current limits on the program make the
guarantees meaningless, and higher amounts alarm budget officials, the Office of Management and Budget needs to calculate the risk
of default to account for the cost of the guarantees. Based on past performance of nuclear plants, that cost might be awfully steep.
"From a myopic American point of view, it is not a good record," said Crane, NRG Energy's chief executive. "But the record is 20 or
30 years old. I don't know a business today that wants to be judged on what it was doing in the '70s." Even if every plant could get
loan guarantees for 80 percent of its cost, Crane said, projects would each require more than $1 billion in equity. "That's a lot of
money at risk," he said. Industry executives say new technology makes better performance more likely. For example, to reduce the
chance of an uncontrolled accident, Westinghouse's new nuclear plants use a passive design, rather than electronic or manual devices,
for pumps that release cooling water in an emergency. Nuclear reactor builders also say that they could cut costs and reduce licensing
delays by using standard designs rather than tailoring plants to each customer. Four Westinghouse reactors are being built in China,
which U.S. firms hope will resolve design difficulties. Plants built recently in Japan have been cheaper than those built in the United
States 20 or 30 years ago.

( ) Any financial risk would be covered by companies
Platts 08 (DOE gets approval for nuclear energy loan guarantees, Jan. 7, 2008,
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/Resources/News%20Features/growth/index.xml)
Constellation's Wallace stressed that the risks of loan guarantees would be captured in subsidy costs that are paid for by the applicants
and not by taxpayers. He said many in the industry want the calculations for the subsidy costs to be partly spelled out in the
solicitation DOE issues to invite applications. The costs should be further evaluated when the actual loan applications are submitted,
he said. "We see this as being an iterative process, as DOE actually evaluates the loan applications with various features represented in
different projects."

*Michael Wallace, executive vice president of Constellation Energy and chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy




                                                                                                                                      52
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi
                                                                                                              Counterplans




                                                                          States Counterplan 2AC
( ) Perm- Do Both

( ) Permutation solves- state and federal governments can work together
Bowman 08 (FRANK L. (SKIP) BOWMAN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, Remarks at the
Nuclear Energy Assembly, Facing Facts, MAY 6, 2008, Nuclear Energy Institute,
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/bowmanspeech_050508/)
And so to my third point. Tackling this problem – and we must tackle this problem – will require innovative approaches to financing.
Meeting these investment needs will require a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. The times demand
innovative approaches, combining all the financing capabilities and tools available to the private sector, the federal government and
state governments. In terms of new nuclear plant construction, one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of these
projects relative to the size, market value and financing capability of the companies that will build them. The U.S. electric power
sector consists of many relatively small companies, certainly by comparison with the major oil companies and electric companies
overseas like Electricite de France or Tokyo Electric Power Company. As John Rowe said, new nuclear power plants are expected to
cost at least six to seven billion dollars in all-in costs. Although six to seven billion dollar projects are not unique in the energy
business, such projects are typically the province of much larger companies. U.S. electric power companies do not have the size,
financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects on balance sheet, on their own. To do so could place
the entire company at risk – if the project could receive Board approval in the first place. These first projects require credit support –
either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment recovery from state governments, or both.

( ) All of our evidence is specific to the DOE’s federal loan guarantee program- It’s their burden to prove
that the state governments could fill this role

( ) USFG backing key to cheaper and better loans
Chernova 08 (Yuliya Chernova, Of DOW JONES NEWSLETTERS, DOE Seeking Projects For Up To $10 Billion In Loan
Guarantees, Smart Money, June 3, 2008, http://www.smartmoney.com/news/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20080603-000298-1023)
Many start-ups in the renewable energy industry face a conundrum. They are able to raise traditional venture capital to get their ideas
off the ground and to fund pilot projects. But commercialization requires capital beyond the abilities of initial venture investors. At the
same time banks are reluctant to fund experimental technologies like new thin-film solar module production. That's where the Energy
Department's loan guarantee program comes in handy. Under the program, the "full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to
the payment of guaranteed obligations," analysts at Fitch Ratings wrote in a March note about the program. "The loans will have the
same rating as U.S. government obligations 'AAA'," the Fitch analysts continued in their report. Having the backing of the U.S.
government will help these nascent technologies receive commercial loans under reasonable rates. In addition, it's possible that some
loans will come not from commercial lenders but will be funded by the Treasury Department's Federal Financing Bank. "In many
cases, the DOE loan program will likely result in direct funding by the FFB rather than the issuance of a guaranteed loan," Fitch
analysts wrote, adding that in such cases the loan guarantee can support 100% of the debt, as opposed to up to 80% of a commercial
loan. "The FFB's interest rate is expected to result in a lower all-in cost of project funding," the Fitch wrote continued. The $10 billion in
requests for renewable energy and efficiency projects will be the first full round of solicitations, Karsner said. This came after an earlier, specialized round in October, when 16 pre-applicants were selected. "Now everything
is set up, and there's personnel to process" the applications, Karsner said, adding that about 20 people are taking care of the program from the Office Of Loan Guarantees, while various laboratories at the DOE help with
evaluating technology. While the looming change of administrations is adding urgency to the processing of this program, said Karsner, the loan guarantee officer's position isn't political, and the program definitions
themselves will stay intact. Still, "we're hoping we can process some applications before year-end," he said. Of those 16 chosen in the October round, "some have dropped off," Karsner said. Others, like flywheel technology
developer Beacon Power Corp. (BCON) are about to complete the submission of the full application. The test round allows the department to disburse as much as $4 billion in loan guarantees. Beacon is seeking between $50
million and $60 million in federal loan guarantees to build a 20-megawatt flywheel frequency regulation plant in Stephentown, N.Y., said spokesman Gene Hunt, in an interview. So far the process of working with the
government, though lengthy, has been well-organized. "They've kept things moving in a way that's very productive," said Hunt. Beacon approached project finance providers before applying for the federal loan guarantee.
                                                                                                                                     . "In
But the potential lenders said, "You've got to show us six months of revenue, then we can talk," Hunt said. For a research-and-development company it's that first commercialization project that is the most daunting
our case (the federal loan guarantee) makes a huge difference. If we can't get project finance we'd need to further dilute our stock in
order to raise the capital," he said. In addition, the rates on commercial loans for facilities backed by the federal guarantee would be
substantially lower than for those that aren't backed. "The rate would be quite a bit more favorable, if you have the U.S. government
cosigning your loan," said Hunt.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                             53
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                         States Counterplan 2AC

( ) Renewed federal commitment key to nuclear expansion
Bowman 08 (Testimony for the Record, Frank L. Bowman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, U.S. House of Representatives, June 19, 2008,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.061908.Bowman-testimony.pdf)
In terms of new nuclear plant construction, one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of these projects relative to the
size, market value and financing capability of the companies that will build them. New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at
least $6 to 7 billion. U.S. electric power companies do not have the size, financing capability or financial strength to finance new
nuclear power projects on balance sheet, on their own–particularly at a time when they are investing heavily in other generating
capacity, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and environmental controls. These first projects must have financing support–
either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment recovery from state governments, or both. The states
are doing their part. Throughout the South and Southeast, state governments have enacted legislation or implemented new regulations
to encourage new nuclear plant construction. Comparable federal government commitment is essential.

( ) Federal loan guarantees are comparatively better than state loan guarantees for high risk projects
EIA 07 (Energy Information Administration, Loan Guarantees and the Economics of Electricity Generating Technologies,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/eegt.html)
In the electric power sector, the loan guarantee program could substantially affect the economics of new power plants, for three
reasons. First, Federal loan guarantees would allow lenders to be reimbursed in cases of default, but only for certain electric power
sector technologies. Consequently, they would be willing to provide loans for power plant construction at lower interest rates, which
would reduce borrowing costs. For example, a number of private companies guarantee loans made by State and local governments.
Such insured loans typically are rated AAA (very low risk) and therefore have relatively low yields. Indeed, municipalities purchase
such insurance because the decrease in interest rate is greater than the insurance premiums. Second, firms typically finance
construction projects by using a capital structure that consists of a mix of debt (loans) and equity (funds supplied from the owners of
the firm). Debt financing usually is less expensive than equity financing, and up to some point, the average cost of capital (the
weighted average cost of debt and equity financing) can be reduced by substituting debt for equity financing. (The substitution of debt
for equity is called leveraging.) After that point, however, projects financed with large amounts of debt can be very risky, and
additional debt financing can increase the average cost of capital rather than lower it. Thus, there are constraints on the use of
leverage. In many industries, capital structures tend to include 40 to 60 percent debt. With loan guarantees, however, the risks of
highly leveraged projects are shifted to the guarantor, and more leveraging can be used to reduce the average cost of capital for
construction projects. Federal loan guarantees also can allow potential sponsors to participate in one or more major projects while
avoiding the risk of possible failure, which might be caused by factors such as construction cost overruns or lower than expected electricity prices and,
potentially, could threaten the financial viability of the sponsoring firm. To avoid this problem, beginning in the 1990s, many firms used project financing to build
electric power plants, including a number of merchant natural-gas-fired plants that were built in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Under project financing, a power plant
under construction is treated as if it were owned by a separate entity whose sole asset is that new power plant. Thus, the loan is secured only by the new plant. This is
also referred to as non-recourse financing. Because lenders for the plant‘s construction have claims only on the power plant in case of default, the project‘s risk is
quarantined. That is, the lenders have no claims on the firm‘s other assets in case of default, and the project‘s failure will have only limited effect on the firm‘s
creditworthiness and overall financial health. From the firm‘s perspective, there are clear advantages to using project financing. From the lender‘s perspective,
however, project (non-recourse) financing can be very risky, especially if the project is highly leveraged. If the project fails and the firm defaults on its loans, the power
plant will be sold; but if market electricity prices and thus the value of the asset are depressed at the time of the sale, the lender may not be able to recover all its costs.
In addition, the administrative costs associated with bond default can be substantial. Consequently, given the inherent risk of large-scale projects, it could
be very difficult to obtain project financing for a multi-billion-dollar power plant at a cost that would allow the project to remain
economical. Federal loan guarantees would thus provide an incentive program for potential lenders.




                                                                                                                                                                            54
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                     Free Market Counterplan 2AC
( ) Perm- Do Both

( ) Perm solves- Restricting carbon emissions and federal incentives would boost nuclear energy
WNN 08 (World Nuclear News, Carbon charges make nuclear cheapest choice, May 6, 2008, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-
Carbon_charges_make_nuclear_cheapest_choice-0605086.html)
Carbon dioxide charges and federal incentives would increase nuclear energy's cost competitiveness against other generation options
making it the USA's most competitive source of new generation in the long run, a study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
has found. Nuclear Power's Role in Generating Electricity, a newly published study from the CBO, assesses the future commercial
viability of advanced nuclear technology. It compares the costs of new baseload electricity generation from nuclear and others in the
light of the possible effects of carbon dioxide emission constraints and also incentives favouring advanced nuclear technology offered
under the 2005 US Energy Policy Act (EPA). In keeping with the agency's mandate to remain objective and impartial, the study draws
conclusions but makes no recommendations.

( ) Loan guarantees are vital to building new nuclear power plants
Bogardus 07 (Kevin Bogardus, Nuclear power, banks link up in bid to get better financing, May 24, 2007, http://thehill.com/the-
executive/nuclear-power-banks-link-up-in-bid-to-get-better-financing-2007-05-24.html)
In a meeting in April with OMB, a representative from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), electric utility executives and a banking
official pushed for complete loan guarantee coverage that could cover 80 percent of a project‘s cost. Without better coverage, say
nuclear energy advocates, the nuclear “renaissance” could be seriously derailed. Since the April meeting, the Department of
Energy (DoE) has proposed that the federal government cover 90 percent of loan guarantees, higher than its original guidelines of 80
percent, released in August 2006. DoE‘s proposed coverage under Title XVIII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, has left
many in the nuclear industry dissatisfied because they seek 100 percent coverage. ―There either will be no or limited new nuclear
plants developed without a workable loan guarantee program,‖ said Peter Saba of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker. Saba, who
represents nuclear energy companies and served in the DoE in the George H.W. Bush administration, attended the meeting and said
that in the banking community, ―there is not going to be any financing‖ unless the loan guarantee is fixed. Loan guarantees by the
federal government act as default protection for private lenders when they help finance massive projects, like nuclear power plants, to
take into account certain risks and possible delays. In materials circulated to OMB, executives from financial institutions including
Credit Suisse and Lehman Brothers wrote that ―lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a
series of major risks, including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant.‖ They also made clear they
wanted to avoid ―another Shoreham‖ — referring to the decommissioned Long Island nuclear power plant that saddled residents with
huge electric rates without producing any power. The NEI provided a stark assessment by its New Plant Finance Task Force, a group
of nuclear executives across the country. Without better loan guarantee coverage, the task force argued, companies would have
difficulty in financing new plants, which can cost as much as $4 billion.




                                                                                                                                     55
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                      Free Market Counterplan 2AC
( ) Loan guarantees are the vital internal link for nuclear power investment- there are huge up-front
costs
EESI 07 (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose
Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-30-
07_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf)
The position taken by Wall Street regarding investing in nuclear energy indicates the financial risk involved. Six of the nation‘s largest
investors—Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley—submitted comments to
DOE in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking for the loan guarantee program in June 2007. At the time the comments were
submitted, DOE had promised to guarantee loans for up to 80 percent of the project costs, but had not, as of then, determined what
percent of this debt it would guarantee. The investors urged greater financial support from the federal government, stating, ―We
believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other
generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit.‖32 Members of this group also made note of
the many investment concerns associated with nuclear energy: ―Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely
concerned about a number of political, regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power, including the possibility
of delays.‖33 They concluded that DOE shouldguarantee 100 percent of the loans as one of the ―minimum conditions necessary to
secure project financing from lenders and from investors in the fixed income markets.‖34 The nuclear industry itself has made clear
that the construction of new nuclear projects will rely heavily upon the financial backing of DOE through the loan guarantee
program. A press release from the Nuclear Energy Institute on October 4, 2007, demonstrated this view when it announced, ―It is
imperative that the Energy Department have in place a loan guarantee program that will support the financing for these large, capital-
intensive power plant projects.‖35 Both the nuclear industry and Wall Street investors make it clear that new nuclear projects carry a
significant financial risk, one that neither wants to carry without support from the federal government.

( ) Loan guarantees are key to nuclear power- they’re too expensive to build otherwise
Clayton 07 (Mark Clayton, Staff Writer, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear power surge coming, Sept. 28, 2007,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0928/p01s05-usgn.html)
With virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions, reactors are touted as part of the solution to global warming. Over the next 15 months,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of similar permit applications for up to 28 new reactors, costing up to $90
billion to build. But the renaissance may be less robust than it looks. Even if the projects are successful and building proceeds at
breakneck speed, the lead times are so long and costs so high that it's unclear that the US can build enough nuclear plants to make a
dent in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They're so financially risky, experts say, that the only reason building plans are under way
is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults. "Clearly, [nuclear power companies] are not
so confident or they wouldn't want the federal government and taxpayer to be guaranteeing the loans," says David Schlissel a longtime
nuclear industry analyst with consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge, Mass. The industry says it needs the aid to
get nuclear power rolling again. "Yes, we need some help and assistance getting these large projects off the ground," says Paul Genoa
of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in Washington. "This will always be labeled as subsidies. But one person's subsidy is another
person's incentive. These are the first nuclear power plants to be built in years and there's a role for government here." Also, loan
guarantees don't affect taxpayers unless those loans are defaulted on, he points out. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the industry
already is getting an estimated $12 billion in tax breaks and other largess. The Price-Anderson Act, a law dating from the 1950s, caps
the industry's liability at about $10 billion in the event of an accident, even though studies show that a major nuclear meltdown could
easily run 50 times that. Now, the Senate version of a new energy bill includes a provision that could provide tens of billions of
dollars more in federal-loan guarantees. On Tuesday, the Energy Department announced it would provide up to $2 billion in federal
risk insurance for the first six new nuclear-plant projects, protecting them against losses from regulatory or legal delays. "In my view,
these kinds of taxpayer subsidies are vital to the industry, and they wouldn't be building any of these new nuclear plants without
them," says Doug Koplow, president of Earth Track, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm that analyzes subsidies for all forms of
energy, including biofuels.




                                                                                                                                       56
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                               Carbon Tax CP 2AC
( ) Permutation- do both

( ) Perm solves- Restricting carbon emissions and federal incentives would boost nuclear energy
WNN 08 (World Nuclear News, Carbon charges make nuclear cheapest choice, May 6, 2008, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-
Carbon_charges_make_nuclear_cheapest_choice-0605086.html)
Carbon dioxide charges and federal incentives would increase nuclear energy's cost competitiveness against other generation options
making it the USA's most competitive source of new generation in the long run, a study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
has found. Nuclear Power's Role in Generating Electricity, a newly published study from the CBO, assesses the future commercial
viability of advanced nuclear technology. It compares the costs of new baseload electricity generation from nuclear and others in the
light of the possible effects of carbon dioxide emission constraints and also incentives favouring advanced nuclear technology offered
under the 2005 US Energy Policy Act (EPA). In keeping with the agency's mandate to remain objective and impartial, the study draws
conclusions but makes no recommendations.




                                                                                                                                   57
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                Regulations Counterplan 2AC
( ) Regulations will destroy investment, incentives promote the industry
Spencer 07 (Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm)
The federal government heavily promoted nuclear power throughout the industry's rise in the 1950s and 1960s. The government
essentially picked nuclear energy as a winner to supply America's energy needs. This public commitment attracted significant private
investment during the industry's growth phase. Investors made decisions based on, among other variables, an expectation that the
government would not suddenly turn against nuclear power. The United States spent decades encouraging the private sector to invest in peaceful nuclear
energy. This effort began with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which gave industry easy access to nuclear technology that was originally developed for national
security reasons, and included the creation of follow-on public-private partnerships such as the 1955 Power Demonstration Reactor Program. The federal government
worked with industry on a host of military, civil, and commercial projects throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Under the aus-pices of the Atomic Energy Commission in
the exec-utive branch and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in Congress, the government provided lucrative guaranteed contracts and other subsidies that
protected investments and assured private-sec-tor access to the latest nuclear technology.[1] The peaceful use of the atom, it was claimed, was the answer to future
energy woes because it would produce electricity that, among other advantages, was "too cheap to meter."[2] The U.S. Navy's desire to expand nuclear propulsion in its
fleet also heavily influenced growth in the private sector. Although direct subsidies, such as rapid tax amortization and funding for reactor construction, stopped in the
late 1960s, entities within Congress and the executive branch continued to promote nuclear power with indirect support, such as market
guarantees and access to technology.[3] Private investment followed Washington's lead. In cooperation with the federal government,
the private sector expanded capacity and capabilities and developed the necessary technology. Public policy effectively harnessed the
power of the private sector to advance national objectives. The result was the emergence of a world-class nuclear industry. However,
the nuclear industry's success was due largely to public policy designed to promote its growth. Although the industry grew, it became
overly dependent on government. This left it vul-nerable to shifts in public policy. When policy shifted toward outright opposition as
the activist community convinced America's political left that nuclear power was dangerous, the industry predict-ably failed as
investors cut their losses and moved capital to opportunities that were perceived as less threatened by increasing regulatory volatility.

( ) Regulations jack up the price of building plants
Spencer 07 (Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm)
Overall, regulation increased the cost of constructing a nuclear power plant fourfold. [19] Such cost escalation would have been
justified if it had been rooted in scientific and technical analysis. Regrettably, it was largely a function of anti-nuclear activism,
agenda-driven politicians, activist regulators, and unsubstantiated public fear. A total of $70 billion was added to the cost of nuclear
reactors constructed by 1988, and this cost was passed on to the ratepayers. After 1981, the cost of constructing a nuclear power plan
rose from two to six times, [20] which means that either consumers paid significantly more or utilities incurred losses if they did not
charge market prices. Neither circumstance was sustainable.




                                                                                                                                                                      58
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                            Nuclear Kritik 2AC
( ) Nuclear power key to solve root cause of wars between states- We have to find a low-emissions energy
source
Rhodes 02 (Richard Rhodes, Nuclear Expert, Harvard/MIT, Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, Ed. Leventhal,
Tanzer Dolley, pg. 61-2)




                                                                                                                          59
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                           AT: T Alternative Energy
( ) Counter Interpretation- Alternative energy includes nuclear power
Yousefzadeh 07 (Pejman Yousefzadeh, Why Not Go Nuclear?, The American, Jan. 31, 2007,
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/january-0107/why-not-go-nuclear/)
Let‘s hope that President Bush decides to throw more support to nuclear power. If he and the Congress are serious about weaning
America from its reliance on oil, the nuclear energy option is one that should replace ethanol and biofuels as the country‘s alternative
energy resource. Ethanol subsidies and reliance on biofuels only help a select few special interests. But the public interest demands a
better alternative energy policy.

( ) We meet counter interpretation- we increase nuclear power which is an alternative energy

( ) Counter Standards-

         1. Field context- our evidence comes from the literature base on alternative energies instead of a
         dictionary. This means it’s more predictable

         2. Overlimits- Nuclear energy is at the heart of the topic, limiting it out would

( ) No voters

         1. Reasonability- As long as we’re reasonably topical you shouldn’t vote against us

         2. Literature checks- Nuclear power exists in all of the alternative energy literature, means there is
         no abuse




                                                                                                                                      60
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                           Ext- Nuclear Power is Alternative Energy
( ) Nuclear power is an alternative energy
Yousefzadeh 07 (Pejman Yousefzadeh, Why Not Go Nuclear?, The American, Jan. 31, 2007,
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/january-0107/why-not-go-nuclear/)
The benefits of nuclear power have converted environmentalists who were formerly hostile to any policy relying on nuclear energy as
an alternative resource. People like Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, have renounced their anti-nuclear positions
and now argue that nuclear power is one of the safest, most affordable, most environmentally sensitive sources of energy around.
Additionally, as Moore points out, nuclear energy is more reliable than wind and solar energy, and the problems of nuclear waste and
reactors as targets for terrorism—while meriting the most stringent security procedures in response—have been dramatically
overstated.




                                                                                                                                   61
JDI 08
Murray/Naputi

                                                    AT: T Incentives
( ) We meet- Loan guarantees are incentives
Bhambhani 08 (Dipka Bhambhani, Inside Energy with Federal Lands, June 9, 2008, Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting
its impact on nuclear revival, LN)
'Get it done faster' Inhofe said the country must somehow find a way to get more plants built. "We can't resolve the [energy-demand]
problem without a huge nuclear component," Inhofe said. There are 33 applications for new plants at the NRC. "Our job is to
streamline this thing to get it done faster," he said. Carper said, "One of the best ways to screw this [nuclear] renaissance up is
missteps." "One Three-Mile Island [disaster] and we're dead, hopefully not literally," he added. Carper said he would support
including in climate change legislation next year a "clean energy" fund to provide incentives to utilities for nuclear plants. "We cannot
accomplish reducing carbon in what our goals are without nuclear," Inhofe said. "We cannot get there with the current nuclear title."
"We have got to have loan guarantees that are robust to encourage the financing. We need to have incentives that have some degree of
parody. We subsidize wind and solar 20 times what we do nuclear," Inhofe said.




                                                                                                                                      62

				
DOCUMENT INFO