; NDI Nanotech Aff Home
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

NDI Nanotech Aff Home

VIEWS: 170 PAGES: 124

  • pg 1
									NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

         Nanotechnology Affirmative
CASE EXPLANATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
STRATEGY HINTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4
NANO-ENERGY 1AC ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5

                                                       ***ADVANTAGE ADD-ONS***
CLEAN WATER ............................................................................................................................................................................... 21
POVERTY ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25
    DEVELOPMENT XTN ............................................................................................................................................................ 26
RAW MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27
GEOTHERMAL POWER ................................................................................................................................................................. 28
WIND POWER.................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
    WIND POWER XTN................................................................................................................................................................ 34
BIODIVERSITY................................................................................................................................................................................ 35
SPACE EXPLORATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

NANOTECH INEVITABLE ............................................................................................................................................................. 38
EFRC UNDERFUNDED ................................................................................................................................................................... 39
SQ INCENTIVES FAIL .................................................................................................................................................................... 40
NO FEDERAL VC SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 41
NANOTECH EXPANDING ............................................................................................................................................................. 42
VC INVESTMENT DECLINING ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
NNI FAILS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

                                                 ***GRID PARITY ADVANTAGE***
TIMEFRAME .................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
SOLAR INDUSTRY GROWTH ....................................................................................................................................................... 48
SILICON SHORTAGES ................................................................................................................................................................... 50
THIN-FILM PANELS SOLVE ......................................................................................................................................................... 52
VC LOVES SOLAR .......................................................................................................................................................................... 53
BLACKOUTS => NUCLEAR MELTDOWN .................................................................................................................................. 54
BLACKOUTS => ECONOMIC COLLAPSE ................................................................................................................................... 55
BLACKOUTS COMING .................................................................................................................................................................. 56
LOWER PRICES KEY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 58
SOLAR BUBBLE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 59
SILICON SHORTAGES ................................................................................................................................................................... 62
LOW QUALITY SILICON ............................................................................................................................................................... 63
JUMPSTARTS RENEWABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... 64
SPARKS R&D ................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
QUANTUM DOTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 66
NANO KEY TO SOLAR .................................................................................................................................................................. 67

                                                                                     1 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                         ***ENERGY STORAGE ADVANTAGE***
SQ STORAGE PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................................................................. 69
MILITARY APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 70
TRANSPORTATION REVOLUTION ............................................................................................................................................. 71
NANOTECH SOLVES STORAGE .................................................................................................................................................. 73
SOLID-STATE HYDROGEN SAFE ................................................................................................................................................ 74
NANOTECH GROWTH ................................................................................................................................................................... 76

                                                  ***LEADERSHIP ADVANTAGE***
CHINA LEAPFROG ......................................................................................................................................................................... 78
DOMINANCE THREATENED ........................................................................................................................................................ 79
INVESTMENT SOLVES BRAIN DRAIN ....................................................................................................................................... 81
DOMINANCE THREATENED ........................................................................................................................................................ 82
CHINESE NANOWEAPONS IMPACT ........................................................................................................................................... 83

GOVERNMENT KEY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 86
R&D GOOD ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
SOLVENCY XTN - REGULATION ................................................................................................................................................ 90
PRIZES .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 91
EXPAND EFRC FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................................. 92
NANOTECH => ALTERNATIVE ENERGY .................................................................................................................................. 93
VENTURE CAPITALISTS GOOD .................................................................................................................................................. 99

                                                             ***A/T CASE ATTACKS***
A/T NANOTECH TAKES TOO LONG ......................................................................................................................................... 102
A/T GOVERNMENT FUNDING BAD .......................................................................................................................................... 103
A/T NANOTECH UNFEASIBLE ................................................................................................................................................... 104
A/T GREY GOO.............................................................................................................................................................................. 105
A/T NANOTECH => EXTINCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 107
A/T INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................................................... 108
A/T ACCIDENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 109
JOY INDICTS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 110

                                                          ***A/T DISADVANTAGES***
A/T OIL DISADS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 112
A/T NUCLEAR POWER GOOD DISADS..................................................................................................................................... 115
A/T MALTHUS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 116
A/T WAR IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 117

                                                           ***A/T COUNTERPLANS***
A/T EXCLUDE PRIVATE SECTOR PIC ...................................................................................................................................... 119
A/T BAN NANOTECHNOLOGY CP ............................................................................................................................................ 120
A/T MILITARY RESEARCH CP ................................................................................................................................................... 122

                                                                       ***A/T KRITIKS***
A/T NEOLIBERALISM / CAPITALISM BAD .............................................................................................................................. 124

                                                                                       2 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                WIKE

                                           CASE EXPLANATION

The basic story is that the federal government recently banned the collaboration of the federal government
and venture capitalists in the development of new technologies. Their reasoning was that it wasn‘t cost
effective, but in reality it was just pandering bullshit. Plan reestablishes this funding for ―thematic
development of nanotechnology-based alternative energy‖. All this means is that we focus on energy first
rather than diversifying all of the SQ funds amongst different agencies.

Advantage 1 – Grid Parity

The term grid parity refers to making renewable energies the same cost or cheaper than fossil fuels, and in
this instance, we are referring to solar energy. The problem is that grid parity may be reached in the SQ, but
the solar industry is in an economic bubble because of things like a lack of silicon (not silicone; that goes in
stripper boobs) and unsteady government incentives. Nanotechnology allows us to invest in thin-film panels
which don‘t use silicon now, so it avoids popping the bubble later when quartz gets back on the market. The
impact is that blackouts cause economic collapse and nuclear war. You can add pretty much any other ―solar
good‖ impact if you don‘t like the blackouts stuff.

Advantage 2 – Energy Storage

The whole world is looking for alternatives to oil, and hydrogen tends to be the money maker, but the
problem is how to store it. Current methods involved liquid hydrogen or gasification, but they are unstable
and tend to explode. Nanotechnology allows for the development of solid-state storage of hydrogen and
more efficient use of the energy produced. The military is then able to project power more effectively and
hegemony is good. The internal link card lists co2 emissions and infrastructure, but I didn‘t put impacts to
that in the 1AC.

Advantage 3 – Leadership

If you are looking for Sci-Fi kinda stuff, than this is the advantage for you. The argument is that China is
increasing nanotech investment to leapfrog over the US and claim dominance in the field. The impact to this
is that when one country claims dominance in the field they will get first access to nanoweapons and
determine the fate of the world. The solvency for this is pretty good since it specifically states that our
solvency mechanism (VC) solves for science and technology leadership..

The solvency contention is straight forward about VC investment in nanotechnology being awesome. I also
included a preempt against the nanotech bad debate.

                                                 3 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                              WIKE

                                          STRATEGY HINTS

  1) Versatility – You can pretty much to claim to solve for every major alternative energy out there
     because nanotech will make it better. The benefit of this is that you will goad Neg teams into making
     ―X energy bad‖ arguments which don‘t apply to the nanotech-created technology. For example,
     indicts of traditional photovotalics don‘t apply to thin-film technologies because they do not leak
     since they are so well, thin.

  2) Impact Level – Nanoweapons by themselves are badass, but the benefit of the other advantages is that
     they all act as internal links for everything else. If you wanted to just focus on one or two alternative
     energies and adjust the plan text, you can still claim all of the same advantages and then some. Hell,
     you could even have 2-3 versions of the case depending on the Neg team and what they like to argue.

  3) Grey Good/Drexler – The major offense against this case is that unregulated nanotech will result in
     self-multiplying nanobots that will get out of control and destroy the world. The easiest way to deal
     with this is to NOT run the leadership advantage with the nanoweapon impacts and then claim that
     self-regulation solves AND that you don‘t deal with weaponry. Those answers coupled with nanotech
     inevitable and the preempt at the bottom should easily deal with it.

  4) Know the Terminology – This case can easily come off as a bunch of techno bullshit, but if you are
     able to describe specifically why nanotech-based AE is different you can save yourself a lot of hassle.
     Things like molecular nanotechnology, self-replicating automatons, and carbon fibers are pretty key.

  5) Tech Spinoffs are NOT Extra-topical – Teams will claim that your add-ons or even the third
     advantage are extra-topical because they are morons. Your response to that is that development of
     nanotech in one area inevitably spills over into other areas. Look at corning wear. It was developed
     by NASA to withstand solar radiation and not it is used to bake casseroles. MMM… casserole.

                                               4 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                           NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 1/15


Athar   Osama, PhD public policy from the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School for Public Policy, ―Washington Goes to Sand Hill Road: The Federal
                                                                                                        2008, p.
Government‘s Forays into the Venture Capital Industry‖, Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies, Jan.

In February 2007, the federal government appears to have decided to pull the plug on the funding for venture
investments. The step was taken as a pragmatic measure to cut support for certain types of discretionary
funding programs and was justified by Rob Portman, OMB Director at that time, on the basis of an ideological
argument. Answering a question at a press conference in February 2007, Portman noted the following vis-à-vis the funding request for RPC.33 ―We don‘t
think the government ought to be investing in venture capital. So we propose eliminating that program, as an example [alongside 141 other programs].‖ As a result
of this directive, NASA‘s Red Planet Capital, dependent upon annual allocations from Congress, has begun wrapping up its operations as a federal venture capital
                                                                                                       the venture framework,
fund and is looking to transform itself into an international venture fund network called Astrolabe Ventures.34 While
networks, and relationships it developed during its three-month-long operation might survive, the public
funding component for it has not. Red Planet Capital Principal Graham Burnette is seeking private investment in a fund designed to leverage this
know-how and organizational establishment. Information provided at the above-cited press conference did not make it clear whether OMB had decided to cut all
three of the federal venture capital programs. The Army‘s OnPoint Technologies, for instance, insists that it is still in operation and does not foresee a closure
anytime soon.35 OnPoint Technologies, however, may be a slightly different story in that it was not dependent upon annual funding by the Congress. The Army
established the fund through the creation of a $60 million endowment that provided the cushion to finance a multi-year investment stream.36 This increases the
likelihood that that OnPoint may survive, at least in a somewhat stronger position, and may be able to achieve sustainability by reinvesting the profits from its
earlier investments. Similarly, it is difficult to precisely predict whether In-Q-Tel would survive these budgetary cuts primarily because of the rather unique nature
of funding appropriations to the CIA and others in the intelligence community. On the whole, though, it is fair to say that   this abrupt decision to cut
funding for federal venture capital programs merely a year after one such program was initiated by the Congress is probably due to more
pragmatic reasons, such as the need for budget cuts, than for deeper philosophical reasons. It is not based on a rigorous analysis of whether
each of these programs had actually delivered the results expected of it in the short-to-medium term. While much
can, and has been, said from an ideological or an economic standpoint about whether governments must intervene directly (or indirectly) in the technology
commercialization or venture capital markets, it is not clear whether the three venture creation programs in question actually constituted a sufficiently substantial
                                                    a case can be made that governments have always
direct interference with the venture capital markets to cause resistance. Indeed,
interfered with the technology commercialization and venture markets. For example, the federal government continues to fund
the SBIR, STTR, and ATP Programs; to support DARPA technology developments; and to provide vast R&D and other subsidies to technology firms.37 In fact,
much of today‘s commercial technology, from the computer and the Internet to Global Positioning Systems
and mobile communication devices, would not have been possible without massive public sector support. On
the basis of latter, one can make an argument that the mission needs of the federal agencies today require a
different, more finely tuned, intervention than broadly defined public subsidies for R&D, as these subsidies
may only be partially effective in meeting an agency‘s peculiar technology needs. Such an argument, however, needs to be
carefully constructed, analyzed, and validated, both before and after the venture fund is established. Evidence gleaned from several years of operation of In-Q-Tel
and OnPoint Technologies can provide valuable insights into the validity of the argument presented above. In particular, a thorough and rigorous analysis,
conducted by an independent and objective third party, could inform this ongoing debate by making three important contributions: Initiate a comprehensive
analysis of the performance of the three federal venture capital funds in question, including their contributions to the agencies‘ missions, the type of technologies
supported and developed, and the role that this type of intervention played in comparison with other potential instruments of public policy. Identify and highlight
the challenges these venture funds have encountered, and continue to encounter, in carrying out their multiple missions of achieving technology innovation in their
parent agencies while simultaneously creating a clear path toward commercialization and sustainability. This analysis must address critical questions such as: •
What are these funds really good at? • What kind of problems do they solve? • What kind of problems do they solve better than others? • What are some other
ways to achieve the same objectives, perhaps with a more market-based kind of policy intervention? Finally, on the basis of the issues outlined above, develop a
carefully constructed and fine-tuned economic argument for public policy intervention in this arena. This argument must take an impartial, broad view of the

(Osama continues)

                                                                         5 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                               WIKE

                                                          NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 2/15

(Osama continues)

federal government‘s involvement in the technology commercialization and venture capital markets and, by doing so, exercise a degree of objectivity and
                                                                                The fate of federal venture programs—and for
independence that probably was not exercised at the time most of these initiatives were created.
that matter any of public policy intervention—must be decided on the basis of rigorous economic and policy evidence
regarding theirs effectiveness and utility rather than on a set of fuzzy ideological criteria of what a
government should and should not do. This question of how, when, and why the federal government should
become involved in the technology commercialization and venture capital markets is an ideal scenario to
carry out such an analysis.

                                                                        6 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                           NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 3/15



Lux Research, ―SOLAR BUBBLE TO BURST IN 2009 AS SUPPLY EXCEEDS DEMAND‖, Mar. 20, 2008, p.

The solar industry has been on a remarkable run in recent years, attracting the attention of investors, corporations, and policymakers. This
activity has inflated a bubble that‘s primed to burst. While growth will continue to be robust – solar industry
revenues will grow at a brisk 27% annual rate to reach $70.9 billion in 2012, up from $21.2 billion in 2007 – the solar industry will look very
different just two years from now, according to a new report from Lux Research entitled ―Solar State of the Market Q1 2008: The End of the
Beginning.‖ ―Government subsidies in countries like Japan, Germany, and Spain have helped make large-scale solar a reality, with annual installations reaching
                                                                                  this period, solar demand has
3.43 GW in 2007," said Lux Research Senior Analyst Ted Sullivan, the report‘s lead author. ―During
consistently outpaced supply. But the market is now approaching a tipping point: We project that the supply
of solar modules will exceed demand in 2009, leading to falling prices and a shake-out among companies
that aren‘t prepared to thrive in this new environment – particularly crystalline silicon players that
haven‘t invested in new thin-film technologies.‖ To bring clarity to the solar market, Lux Research studied five solar technologies in depth
– 1) crystalline silicon photovoltaics (PV), which dominate today; 2) multi-junction PV, used in high-concentrating PV (HCPV) systems; 3) inorganic thin-film PV;
4) organic and Grätzel PV; and 5) solar thermal. The team built a new forecast that independently models solar supply and demand through 2012 using a rigorous,
scenario-driven methodology, spanning five technologies, three application segments, and 10 countries. Finally, the team also drew on Lux
Research‘s comprehensive database of solar finance, which contains every round of institutional venture capital (VC) funding in firms commercializing solarrrp
tr5el tr; ctrl bb;. Tyyvty yujh lujl tbty‘ v./htechnology, every solar initial public offering (IPO) on a major exchange, and every solar merger and acquisition (M&A)
event, worldwide, going back to 1995.

                                                                        7 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                        WIKE

                                                            NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 4/15


Andrew Leonard, senior editor @ Salon, ―Pop goes the solar bubble‖, Salon, Jan. 4, 2008, p. http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/01/04/solar_bubble/

Judging by the current stock prices of publicly traded solar power companies, investors agree that the
prospects for solar power are, well, sunny. The bloom may be off the ethanol rose, but in 2008 solar power is everyone's
renewable energy darling. Fueling all the giddy dreams is the hope that the same relentless process of manufacturing innovation that continually drives
down the price of computer hardware components will work its magic on a smorgasbord of solar power technologies. And then some day not too far from now,
we'll hit that fabled land of "grid parity" -- that point when the cost of solar power-generated electricity is competitive with coal or natural gas. But before we get
       little snag lies in wait for the bubblelicious investors swooning over every solar IPO. Too much solar
there, a
power-generating capacity, too quickly, could be a drag. At least that's the argument made by Jerome Ball, a former telecom industry product
manager who has been paying close attention to solar power stocks. By Ball's calculations, the generating capacity about to be
dumped on the market by solar power firms will far outstrip demand over the next couple of years. Global
demand, he argues, is primarily driven by government subsidies and incentives, and Ball believes that such
subsidies will be flat or even decline in 2008 and 2009. Meanwhile, capital is pouring into the solar power industry and everyone
from Spain to Shanghai is ramping up production. Ball even has a shout-out for Taiwan. While manufacturers have been aggressively ramping for the last 18
months, since October 2007, the rate of capacity increase announcements has recently accelerated to new highs. Not only does everyone want in to PV
[photovoltaics], but they all know they need to scale up to top-10 status in order to stay viable. In addition, PV has relatively low barriers to entry. Taiwan
manufacturers, for example, see PV as a new opportunity requiring less investment and less risk than offered by the chip/components businesses and are now
moving in. They will not abandon a fast-growing market to the mainland. Some of us are heartened by a boom in generating capacity. But if your goal is to make a
                              is the last thing you want. Too much supply will inevitably hammer profit
killing in the stock market, oversupply
margins. Pop goes the solar bubble! Time to sell short! I have no idea whether Ball's predictions about global demand are on the money. There
are too many wild cards in the mix. Democratic control of the White House along with Congress in 2009 could lead to a substantial push for more solar power.
New "thin film" solar power technologies, such as that pioneered by California's Nanosolar and currently rolling off the production lines,
could drastically change the cost-benefit analyses, and bring us one step closer to grid parity. As Ball concedes, as
soon as we hit grid parity the global demand for solar power-generating capacity will be effectively infinite, and
no one will worry about oversupply for a long, long time to come. Furthermore, China alone is so hungry for power that one has to imagine that any glut in solar
power-generating capacity will disappear into its maw in short order. Putting the concerns of speculators aside, the main worry, from a
consumer's point of view, is that a glut of supply doesn't incite a crash so huge that the industry is crippled for years
to come. And that just seems unlikely. A far more probable scenario is that the weak, inefficient players get weeded out. It isn't easy making money in the
semiconductor or computer hardware business -- just ask Dell. As consumers we should hope that the same holds true for solar power. Vicious, nasty, brutish, only-
the-strong-survive competition based on relentless cost-cutting is exactly what the doctor ordered.


Michael    Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―The impact of carbon nanotubes on the use of solar energy‖, Nanowek, Feb. 22, 2007, p.

                                                                                                                             the power of
With an increased focus on alternative sources of cheap, abundant, clean energy, solar cells are receiving lots of attention. Harnessing
the sun to replace the use of fossil fuels holds tremendous promise. One way to do this is through the use of solar, or photovoltaic, cells. Until
now, solar cells that convert sunlight to electric power have been dominated by solid state junction devices,
often made of silicon wafers. Thanks to nanotechnology, this is now being challenged by the development of
a new generation of solar cells based on thin film materials, nanocrystalline materials and conducting
polymeric films. These offer the prospects of cheaper materials, higher efficiency and flexible features. This has
opened up new opportunities in solar cell research and development and, consequently, there is considerable investor interest in solar nanotechnology startups.
Both inventors and investors are betting that flexible sheets of solar cells used to harness the sun's strength will ultimately provide a cheap and efficient source of

                                                                          8 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                        WIKE

                                                            NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 5/15


Jigar Shah, Chief Strategy Officer of SunEdison, ―Can solar energy save us from blackouts?‖, The Weather Channel, Aug. 23, 2007, p.

Four years ago this month, more than 50 million people in Canada and the U.S. sat in the dark for days -- stuck in one of the largest power outages in US history.
 The blackout of August 14, 2003, one of the darkest days for the United States' traditional energy grid, started in Ohio and swept over 3,700 miles from the
Midwest to the Northeast. Our need for energy and an aging infrastructure did nothing to prevent this massive outage. One initial failure put strain on the rest of the
grid and the result was a cascading series of failures which eventually shut down more than 100power plants. The result was costly: More than two-thirds of
affected businesses lost at least a full day because of the blackout. Clearly we pay in many ways -- financially, environmentally -- when traditional energy runs
well, and we pay in other ways when it fails. That blackout was a mere punctuation in the long and ongoing discussion surrounding an increasingly important
question: Can our aging infrastructure support our increasing demand for power? Every year, traditional utilities spend about ten percent of their budgets on
reliability-related issues. However, reliability expenses are often challenging to uncover in traditional utility reports. In fact, reliability expenditures aren't always
accurately reflected in the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity. Yet our   dependence, demand and value placed upon grid reliability are
without doubt critical to our day-to-day lives.                    If we really understood the cost of grid reliability, what would we do? What should we do? It
seems to many experts that continuing down the path we are on is not the answer. Yet, some utilities and energy experts are bent upon building more of the 20th
century technology. Others, such as ENERNOC, Comverge, Gridpoint, Enflex, Beacon Power and others are looking at utility reliability in a different way. They
see an opportunity with distributed generation of electricity -- and with solar as a significant part of the equation. Solar   power is now more than an
"environmental statement," and is becoming part of the suite of technologies that form a solution for grid
reliability. Our demand for energy is growing at nearly two percent per year. While this does not sound like much, it equates to 20,000 MWs of additional
generation per year. This means that traditional utilities are strained to meet peak demand. And that is when solar is at its best. During peak hours of
the day, solar is available more than 75 percent of the time -- and that supports traditional grid reliability. In
fact, according to a recent study by Austin Energy, utilities receive 2X the value of retail energy prices from solar energy. Why? Because solar not only
offsets expensive peak generation, but it also reduces the strain on the transmission and distribution grid.
Simply put, solar adds significant value by insuring that consumers have a reliable source of energy. Consider also the
cascading effects on the economy and people's lives. Then understand that a study sponsored by the Department of Energy concluded that as
little as 500 MW of distributed solar power could have helped to prevent this massive outage as well as many
smaller, local brownouts. The reason is that our infrastructure is stressed at a level that requires either
massive investment -- over $200B by some accounts -- or relief that could be supplied by localized deployment of solar
power and energy storage. Would solar power have been worth it on that sweltering, uncertain day in August? My guess is you'd have gotten a
unanimous "yes" from anyone impacted by the outage. When we keep a broad perspective on energy costs, it's clear that solar power is neither a novelty nor
a luxury. It is a cost-effective, badly needed reinforcement for our energy grid.

                                                                          9 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                            NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 6/15


Shaun Waterman, UPI Homeland & National Security Editor, ―Terror attack on grid would collapse US‖, Information Clearing House, Sept. 4, 2003, p.

Government scientific advisers and officials painted a grim picture Thursday of the consequences of a terror attack on the nation's power grid, saying that any
outage that lasted longer than a couple of days would reduce urban centers to chaos and collapse the
economy. "With power out beyond a day or two, both food and water supplies would soon fail.
Transportation systems would be at a standstill ... natural gas pressure would decline and some would lose
gas altogether -- not good in the winter time ... Communications would be spotty or non-existent. ... All in
all, our cities would not be very nice places to be... Martial law would likely follow," Paul H. Gilbert of the National
Research Council told a congressional panel. Lawmakers on the House Homeland Security Committee were trying to see what lessons about the nation's security
could be drawn from the massive Aug. 14 power outage, which left 50 million people in the United States and Canada without electricity for -- in some cases -- up
to three days. But Gilbert said that recovery from an outage caused by a deliberate attack could "take weeks or months rather than hours or days." Such frightening
scenarios are not the product of a nightmarish imagination. Gilbert's analysis was based on the work of a high-level brains trust within the National Academies.
Nearly 200 scientists, experts and officials worked for six months on the report he cited as the basis for his assessment. Nor is such an attack beyond the realm of
reality. Larry A. Mefford, counter-terror chief of the FBI, told the panel that, "Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are known to have considered energy facilities ...
as possible targets." While cautioning that there was "no specific, credible intelligence about threats" to the nation's power infrastructure, he said that methods of
attack could range from blowing up pylons or power stations to sophisticated cyber attacks on the automated computer-run elements of the grid. Gilbert called
these programs -- known as supervisory control and data acquisition systems or SCADA -- "an open invitation to those who would use computer technology to
attack the grid." But Mefford told the panel that there was no evidence al-Qaida had the ability to exploit such weak points. "We have not seen any indication that
al-Qaida possesses a sophisticated computer intrusion capability," he said. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, one of the panelists who produced the National
Academies' report, agreed it was unclear whether al-Qaida or any other terrorist group had the capacity to mount such an attack. "That would depend on their
infrastructure in this country and the extent of their knowledge of the grid," he told United Press International, adding that a successful assault is "a lot easier than
we wish it were." John McCarthy, director of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Project at George Mason University, described how a student of his -- using
information in the public domain -- had created a comprehensive map of the nation's entire fiber optic cable network as part of his Ph.D. dissertation. The
document so alarmed officials -- one described it as "a road map for terrorists" -- that they wanted to classify it. His student was "very, very smart," said McCarthy,
but his work could be replicated for the power grid. "I am convinced there are equally smart people looking at our infrastructure who don't have our best interests at
heart." Some lawmakers were impatient that -- nearly two years after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and six months after it had been established -- the
Department for Homeland Security had not yet completed one of its primary tasks -- a comprehensive survey of the nation's critical infrastructure and its
vulnerabilities. "We understand they're working on that," Mefford said. Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., pointed out that without a comprehensive assessment of
the nation's weak spots, it was hard to know where the country needed defending. "In the absence of that it seems you would have a very difficult time knowing
                                                     Gilbert said that the August outage could have lasted
where our priorities should be and where we should spend our limited dollars."
much longer, and pointed out that it exposed the weakness of the "fragile" power grid, which had "little
reserve within which to handle power or load fluctuations." He said that deregulation and the profit motive had combined to make the
system less robust over the past 10 years, as "competitive price (and) low operating costs ... are rewarded with profits and bonuses," leading to "diminishing
investments in maintenance and spare parts."


Chris H.   Lewis, environmental historian, University of Colorado-Boulder, THE COMING AGE OF SCARCITY, 1998, p. 56.

Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that  instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global
economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, Japan, and others
will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. These
neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military
confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale
that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the
developed nations' economic and political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars
will so damage the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they
will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the
worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization.

                                                                       10 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                           NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 7/15



Michael Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Nanotechnology storage tanks‖, Nanowerk, June 18, 2008, p. http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6094.php

Storing the fuel that is needed to run a hydrogen car in a compact and affordable way is still a major challenge. You would
need about 5 kg of hydrogen to have the same average driving range as today's cars. Since hydrogen's density is only 1/10th of a gram per liter at room temperature,
that means you somehow need to pack 50,000 liters of hydrogen into your tank. There are three ways of doing this: as a high-pressure compressed gas; a cryogenic
liquid; or as a solid. Compressed hydrogen gas tanks are used in early hydrogen-powered vehicles. Honda, which just two days ago announced that it began
production for its FCX fuel cell vehicle, uses two 350-atmosphere high-pressure hydrogen tanks that give the car a 430 km driving range. Rather than using
                                                                            hydrogen storage in solid form
hundreds of atmospheres to compress hydrogen into a tank, or cooling it down to minus 252 °C to liquefy it,
offers the safest alternative for transportation and storage of hydrogen. Research in this area has led to metal hydrides, chemical
hydrides, and physisorption-based storage, where hydrogen is adsorbed onto the interior surfaces of a porous material. The stored hydrogen can then be released by
heat, electricity, or chemical reaction. Many metals are capable of absorbing hydrogen as well. The storage of gas in solids is not only an intriguing alternative for
                                                                                                            storage in solids is
hydrogen storage but other types of gases, such as carbon dioxide and other environmentally important gases as well. Gas
quickly becoming an important technology, with applications ranging from energy and the environment to
biology and medicine. A new review article in Angewandte Chemie describes the types of material that make good porous gas storage materials, why
different porous solids are good for the storage of different gases, and what criteria need to be met to make a useable gas storage material. Written by Dr. Russell E.
Morris and Dr. Paul Wheatley, a researcher in Morris' group at the University of St. Andrews in the UK, the paper discusses the use of nanoporous materials for gas
storage in three areas: energy, medical, and environmental applications. The two write that for most of these applications, but particularly hydrogen storage, we are
still in the materials discovery phase of research. "Once materials with suitable properties have been made and characterized the research focus will change more
towards making the applications work, bringing in engineering. This is already happening to some degree in certain areas but will undoubtedly increase in the
others also. There are also some interesting gases (e.g. ozone) that have not yet been studied in this context, and there are opportunities for the innovative chemist
here also." Gas storage for energy applications Safe, efficient and compact hydrogen storage is a major challenge in order to realize hydrogen powered transport.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy Freedom CAR program roadmap the on-board hydrogen storage system should provide 6 weight % (wt%) of
                                                                        of hydrogen in nanoporous materials can lead to
hydrogen capacity to be considered for the technological implementation. Storage
higher capacities than gas storage in a simple tank. Currently, the storage of hydrogen in the absorbed form is
considered as the most appropriate way to solve this problem. Several porous materials and strategies for enhancing hydrogen
uptake are reviewed in the article. Given the current state of the research, the authors conclude that meeting the goals set by the
Department of Energy, while theoretically possible, is a great challenge and it will take an exceptional Material to be


Michael   Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Why don't we have a nanotechnology Apollo Program for clean energy?‖, Nanowek, Apr. 30, 2008, p.

                          hydrogen storage is a major challenge in order to realize hydrogen powered transport.
Safe, efficient and compact
Nanotechnology plays an important role here. Nanomaterials have diverse tunable physical properties as a
function of their size and shape due to strong quantum confinement effects and large surface to volume
ratios. These properties are useful for designing hydrogen storage materials. For instance, researchers are now investigating
nanostructured polymeric materials as hydrogen storage adsorbents. Due to their large surface areas with relatively small mass,
single-walled carbon nanotubes have been considered very promising potential materials for high capacity hydrogen
storage. However, there is some skepticism on carbon nanotube hydrogen storage due to early mistakes in experimental publications and a rational basis for
high capacity hydrogen storage materials is now being developed (New carbon nanotube hydrogen storage results surpass Freedom Car requirements).

                                                                       11 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                          NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 8/15


Alan   Gotcher, Ph.D. & President of Altair Nanotechnologies, Oral Testimony to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on Commerce, Science and
                    2006, p. http://www.altairnano.com/documents/AlanJGotchertestimonySenateCommerce.pdf
Transportation, June 14,

For electric or hybrid electric vehicles, Altairnano‘s nano lithium ion battery will provide: • abundant power for a 300 mile vehicle range; • an under-
eight minute recharge time (from full discharge); • Performance over a wide range of temperatures -40 to +65°C • a 15-year life, with no decline in performance
capabilities; • low weight and ease of design configuration; • Inherent safety, no fire, explosion or environmental hazard; • and no emissions or use of hazardous
materials The technology          is advanced enough that this battery technology could be used in vehicles within a very
few years. The widespread adoption of the technology in the automotive sector would mean greatly reduced
oil imports, greatly reduced CO2 emissions, no need for complex, expensive vehicular hydrogen or natural
gas infrastructure; and vastly increased national security and a more flexible foreign policy. Altairnano‘s lithium ion
batteries are also ideal storage mechanisms for uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and emergency back-up power (EBP) applications. Their performance
characteristics far exceed the batteries now available for these applications, and they make it feasible for UPS and
EBP sites to become reliable nodes in a national distributed system of mini-grids, enhancing energy security
and electric reliability. These batteries also make it feasible for large buildings to become off-peak power
storage facilities. For wind and solar power to ever become reliable mainstream power generation sources,
batteries such as Altairnano‘s will be required. Military applications, from individual soldier tactical needs to global
power projection strategy, will be revolutionized by advanced battery capabilities. Early applications in the
US Navy include providing absolutely reliable, instantaneous power for single-generator ship operations, which could reduce ship fuel
consumption by 15-20%. For the Army, Altairnano‘s battery will power the infantryman‘s increased need for lightweight, portable, safe and reliable
power for the numerous power-hungry combat components he will wear and carry. The same battery design will provide planes,
missiles, and satellites with longer endurance, weight savings for greater payloads and speed, extremely
harsh environment performance, and higher safety margins.

                                                                     12 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                            NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 9/15


   Ferguson, Professor, History, School of Business, New York University and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September-October
2004 (―A World Without Power‖ – Foreign Policy) http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3009996.html

                     empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities.
So what is left? Waning
These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The
trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous--
roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human
                                                                                           Technology has upgraded
societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite.
destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the
integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off
                                           The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead
from the process through tyranny or civil war.
to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11
devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or
do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become
irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China
would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western
investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt
on the edges of the waning great powers. The        wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would
become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil
tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear
wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending
catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious
orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines
would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons,
                                                                                                          If the United States retreats
the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne.
from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not
pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you
wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power.
And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

                                                                       13 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                         NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 10/15



Matthew Nordan, President Lux Research Inc., ―National Nanotechnology Initiative: Charting the Course for Reauthorization‖, Testimony before the US
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Apr. 24, 2008, p.

Each year, Lux Research conducts an annual assessment of international competitiveness in nanotechnology, ranking 19 nations worldwide on their
nanotechnology activity and technology commercialization strength. On an absolute basis, the U.S. remains the world leader in nanotech. Two factors, however,
should give U.S. policymakers pause: • The U.S. does not lead on a relative basis. Relative to our population and the size
of our economy, the U.S. pales in comparison to other countries when it comes to nanotechnology activity.
For example, when government funding is considered on an absolute basis, the U.S. topped the charts in 2007. However, when the same figures are
considered on a per capita basis at purchasing power parity, the U.S. takes eighth place, with funding half that of
Taiwan, and behind Germany, Sweden, and France (see Figure 6).4 • Other countries are catching up. Since we began performing our
international competitiveness rankings in 2005, the position of the U.S. has remained static while other
countries have vaulted upwards in their nanotechnology activity (see Figure 7). For example, nanotech funding
is growing in the EU at twice the rate in the United States, putting the EU on track to claim the mantle of
nanotechnology leadership due to a renewed focus on nanoscale science and engineering in the 7th Framework
Programme for research. Russia recently funded a state nanotechnology corporation with $5 billion of public financing. And scientists in China published nearly as
many scientific journal articles on nanoscale science and engineering in 2007 as those in the U.S. did, at 7,282 to 7,528 (see Figure 8). While the quality of these
publications has been suspect in the past, the   citation rate of nanotech journal articles from China – a measure of their quality – has
doubled in the last decade.

                                                                      14 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                     NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 11/15


Richard Appelbaum, Ex. Com. Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society @ UC Santa Barbara, Gary Gereffi, Dir. Ctr on Globalization, Governance &
Competitiveness, Rachel Parker, Grad Fellow @ Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society, & Ryan Ong, Research Associate @ Ctr. On Globalization,
OFF?‖, Paper prepared for SASE 2006 Conference ―Constituting Globalisation: Actors, Arenas, and Outcomes‖, July 2, 2006, p.

The fact that 19 of the 20 most prolific nanotechnology authors have Chinese surnames, along with half of
all first authors (Kostoff et al, 2006), is an indicator of the increasing centrality of Chinese scientists and engineers
in nanotechnology. Some of these are citizens or permanent residents of countries other than China, while many are graduate students or post-docs
studying in Europe, Japan, or the United States, or working in laboratories in those countries. Chinese nationals working outside of China
have been an important resource for technological development in the United States and elsewhere. They serve on
faculty in prestigious universities, provide an increasing percentage of graduate students in science and
engineering, and staff laboratories. The rise of China, and other Asian countries, suggest this resource may no longer
be readily available. A growing number of Chinese students are choosing to remain in China for their
graduate and post-graduate work, lured by excellent universities and an increasingly first-class scientific
infrastructure, as well as the promise of fortune should their research bear commercial fruit in the world‘s
fastest-growing economy. In a number of scientific and engineering disciplines, a high percentage of the graduate students come from overseas.
Higher education has become an important export service of the United States and, in the past, many international students have stayed to contribute a
great deal to America, its economy, and its capacity to innovate. We may not be able to count on the international graduate student
forever. More and more of the graduates are returning to their home countries, which offer ever-greater opportunities
for their talents. More overseas universities are becoming world class and keeping students at home (Hughes, 2005: 449-
450). Harvard economist Richard Freeman‘s data suggest that these changes are indeed challenging U.S. dominance in science
and engineering. He argues that European and Asian (especially Chinese) students are flocking to their own graduate
programs in science and engineering in increasing numbers, while ―U.S. degree production has stagnated‖
(Freeman, 2005: 1) in these fields. Even though science and engineering students remain a small percentage of the population of China, given the
large population base on which to draw, China (and India) are rapidly becoming leaders in the production of
well-trained scientists and engineers. This trend, Freeman argues, seriously threatens U.S. economic leadership.

                                                                 15 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                         NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 12/15


John Marlow, ―Interview with John Robert Marlow on the Superswarm Option‖ Nanotechnology Now, Feb. 2004, p. http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-

                                 Second Paradox is this: "Nanotechnology must never be developed, because it
As stated in the Nano novel, Marlow's
is too dangerous a thing to exist; nanotechnology must be developed-because it is too a dangerous a thing to
exist in the hands of others." The first rationale-Bill Joy's relinquishment option-will be ignored. The second will drive the race for nanosuperiority.
The first nanopower will, if it plays its cards right, remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future-assuming there
remains a future to foresee. This is so because it will be possible to use the technology itself to prevent all
others from deploying it, or to simply annihilate all others. In the entire history of the human race, there has
never been such a prize for the taking, and there likely never will be again. We are embarked upon what is
quite possibly Mankind's final arms race. Caution may not be a factor, because the losers in the nanorace will exist only at
the whim of the winner, and many will see themselves as having nothing to lose, and the world to gain.
 Consider: China holds third place among nations for nanotech patents. Consider also, from Gannett News Service (February 20, 2000): "Chinese military
specialists urge the development of 'magic weapons' that would allow an 'inferior to defeat a superior enemy.' The report quotes General Pan Jungfeng as calling the
United States 'the enemy.' " Draw your own conclusions. Given this situation, these facts, the occasional incompetence of governments and of militaries in
particular, and human nature itself-the earth may well be doomed. This is the way the world ends.


Aliya   Sternstein, staff writer, ―Risky business‖, Federal Computers Week, Apr. 24, 2006, p. http://www.fcw.com/print/12_14/news/94135-1.html

Adopting the VC model could strengthen the government‘s science and technology leadership, Heesen said.
Venture capital is money made available for investment in innovative enterprises, especially in technology. It
carries the risk of large losses and a potential for big profits. The cycle is long term and does not guarantee a successful product.
 Agency officials who are considering the start-up market ―have to look at these things from a 10-year
perspective, not a two-year perspective,‖ Heesen said. Losses at the beginning of a new venture do not indicate bad science or research, he
added. Government venture capital brings unique challenges, opportunities Smaller companies or entrepreneurs that typically avoid
government work are more likely to work with agencies through a venture-funding framework, Heesen said. ―An In-
Q-Tel can open up doors in the huge federal bureaucracy that your individual VC doesn‘t know exists,‖ he added. In-Q-Tel, which has offices in Arlington, Va.,
                                                                         a government perspective, it‘s
and Menlo Park, Calif., has maintained a solid reputation with portfolio companies, Heesen said. ―From
important to be very analytical and basically slow-paced in rolling out these federally sponsored VC firms,‖ he
said. ―If they are bureaucratic or mediocre, entrepreneurs and VC firms who work alongside the government-
sponsored VC fund are going to walk away quickly.‖ NASA and DOE — two agencies that have technology transfer activities — are a
natural fit for experiments based on the In-Q-Tel model, Heesen said. NASA‘s Innovative Partnerships Program fosters collaborations that pair the agency with
                                                                            Energy Department is another
private enterprise to support technologies applicable to NASA‘s mission and the global marketplace. The
logical area, Heesen said. ―As you see energy [sources] running out, and China and India taking a bite out of oil
demand…you see a lot of venture capitalists interested in the entire energy field right now.‖

                                                                     16 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                             WIKE

                          NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 13/15



                                17 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                          NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 14/15


Dr. Jens Greiser, Strategic Marketing Manager at FEI Co.; Dr. Michael Dr. Naughton, Professor of Physics at Boston College; Dr. Bart Riley,
Founder, VP, R&D, and CTO of A123 Systems; and Dr. B.J. Stanbery, CEO and Founder of HelioVolt Corp, ―Current and Future Nanotech Applications
for Energy & the Environment – A Roundtable Discussion‖, Nanotech Briefs, 2005, p. http://www.nanotechbriefs.com/auth/people/people1_1206.html

                                                                                                           point on the government
NB: What is still needed (funding/research/education) in order to tackle these problems? Dr. Riley: I think the
incentive is that there‘s kind of a push approach, which is more money up front into the research and the
innovation process, and then there‘s the pull approach, which is the subsidies. So I think it‘s a push and a pull. I think you
need to be smart about it, because you could throw money at the problem, but it‘s not going to get anywhere. The
challenge, really, for the policymakers in government, venture capitalists, or whoever the ―funders‖ are, is to try and pick winners,
although governments don‘t like to try and pick winners and they feel strongly about that. But you need to be strategic about where you‘re
placing the investments, in terms of the people, the company or center, and the particular sector. Because you do tend to get success
where you make investments if you do it right. Dr. Stanbery: I would say that governments don‘t need to pick winners; they need
to pick viable themes. The way I interpreted Jens‘ earlier comment was that a random walk is not a good way to get from here to there, and by
picking a theme and funding specific themes to which nanotechnology can be demonstrably applicable and
effective is, in my opinion, an effective strategy for assuring that the money is not frittered away. Dr. Naughton: To echo
Bart‘s statement about this, it should be done wisely. Whether it‘s industries or governments investing, they should be judicious about how they do it. And you
asked whether it‘s funding, research, or education that‘s needed – of course, it‘s all three. Most of the problems that we confront today in energy and the
environment won‘t be solved in the next ten years, but people who are now 15 years old might solve them somewhere down the road. Dr. Greiser: You have to
also keep in mind that with government you always have the constraints of, for example, two-year or five-year thinking – it depends on which government you‘re
talking about. Some governments are elected in two years, some in four, etc. The best example out of Europe is fusion energy, which we‘ve been looking at for 50
years. It‘s a long-term goal, and we have to sustain this long-term goal, which gets passed from government to government. We‘re getting first paybacks from
fusion now from work that began 50 years ago. Dr. Riley: To backtrack a little bit, one wonders if the amount of money that is put into fusion was put into wind or
solar earlier, then where we‘d be. So it‘s one of those things that you could talk about, but ultimately you‘ve got to make bets, and you‘ve got to place the bets. You
simply want to try and learn as much as you can. Dr. Naughton: We should also ask why is that? Does it have to do with successful lobbying efforts of certain
concerns that led to large investments in high energy and fusion, and not enough lobbying in the right areas? Dr. Stanbery: I have to take that on Mike, for a couple
                                            the venture capital community has a much more effective model for
of reasons. My recent experience has convinced me that
deciding how to deploy investment then does the typical government-funding model. The mechanism that is
utilized by the venture capital community is one of intense, rapid decision making and extremely intense due
diligence, which is performed by small teams of experts in the field. The process used by the government for
making decisions about the allocation of R&D on longer-term investments in science and technology
development is often, I think, negatively impacted by the conflict between trying to avoid corruption and avoid
misappropriation of funds at the expense of the efficiency of the process and ironically, because the process
involves peer-review by people who have extremely developed reputations in the academic community. This
more often results in the influence of relationships on decisions about the process than the relatively cut-throat
process used by venture capitalists who simply care whether they can conclude that you have a prospect for
actually doing it, and whether it really makes sense to do it.

                                                                       18 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                          NANO-ENERGY 1AC – 15/15


Mike Trender, Ex. Dir. Of CRN, & Chris Phoenix, Dir. Of Research @ CRN, ―Overview of CRN‘s Current Findings‖, Center for Responsible
Nanotechnology, Apr. 16, 2007, p. http://www.crnano.org/early.htm

If MNT is not developed as soon as possible, the rapidly falling cost will allow several players—corporations and/or
nations—to pursue independent development projects. A delay could happen for several reasons. Overly pessimistic opinions about the
feasibility of MNT could reduce initial interest. Environmental or social concerns, or simple Luddism, could delay the research. Spending
large amounts of money requires either political will or corporate boldness, which could be lacking at the crucial time. If
MNT development is significantly delayed for any reason, then by the time a project is started, development will be considerably
easier. Political and economic pressure for development will rapidly increase. The rapidly falling cost of development will allow more groups to enter the race,
while also greatly improving the cost/benefit ratio. Similarly, there will be a rapid increase in the number of foreign powers who could make a credible attempt at
developing what is (among other things) a massive military force multiplier; once     one program starts, a perceived "nanotechnology
gap" could lead to crash programs in a number of countries that do not fully trust each other. As the number
of contenders in an arms race increases, the risk of preemptive strikes probably increases as well. If MNT is
developed in several projects almost simultaneously, each owner will be able to choose what to do with it.
There will be less scrutiny of each project. Any controls that need to be imposed will require much more effort. Conversely, a single project provides a
single point to monitor and control. An early project, started when the resources required are still quite large,
reduces the uncertainty about who else could be working on MNT development. It may also reduce the
incentive for other projects to start later; many intellectual property rights, and some national security
benefits, of an MNT program will be lost if it can't keep up with the first project. Some of the problems that
MNT could create may only be dealt with effectively by MNT-based technologies. For example, as noted by Robert
Freitas, widespread detection networks may be necessary to deal effectively with grey goo. A system that can
sample large volumes of air or water for sub-micron particles, and respond with sufficient speed to clean up
an infestation, could probably only be built by MNT. Nanotech-built weapons may pose a far greater threat to human well-being. It
would be a good idea to start practical engineering on defensive MNT-built technologies well in advance of
the development of aggressive or dangerous technologies. This might be helped by developing MNT early,
on the theory that early development will allow more selection—at least at first—of who gets to do research with
the technology.

                                                                      19 / 124
NDI 2008-09                              WIKE

               ***ADVANTAGE ADD-ONS***

                       20 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                 CLEAN WATER ADD-ON 1/3


Saul Garlick & Elizabeth Arkell, staff writers, ―Untouched water‖, Asia Times, June 25, 2008, p.

More than 1 billion people, almost 20% of the global population, lack access to clean drinking water. Two
billion more lack access to basic sanitation. Nearly 2 million children around the world will die this year
from water-related illnesses, and with populations in the poorest regions growing faster than in industrialized
areas we can expect this number to increase. Meanwhile, the United States has little to say on global or domestic water policy. Fortune
magazine reports that the global water crisis will be as serious in the 21st century as oil crises were in the
20th, potentially leading to warfare. So it should come as a shock that water is not on the lips of the presidential candidates.

                                                             21 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                          CLEAN WATER ADD-ON 2/3


Vandana Shiva, International Forum on Globalization / Recipient of the 1993 Alternative Nobel Peace Prize, ―Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit‖,
2002, p. x-xii

Paradigm wars over water are taking place in every society, East and West, North and South. In this sense, water
wars are global wars, with diverse cultures and ecosystems, sharing the universal ethic of water as an
ecological necessity, pitted against a corporate culture of privatization, greed, and enclosures of the water
commons. On one side of these ecological contests and paradigm wars are millions of species and billions of
people seeking enough water for sustenance. On the other side are a handful of global corporations, dominated by Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux,
Vivendi Environment, and Bechtel and assisted by global institutions like the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), and G-7 governments.     Alongside these paradigm wars are actual wars over water between regions, within
countries, and within communities. Whether it is in Punjab or in Palestine, political violence often arises from conflicts
over scarce but vital water resources. In some conflicts, the role of water is explicit, as is the case with Syria and Turkey, or with
Egypt and Ethiopia. But many political conflicts over resources are hidden or suppressed. Those who control power prefer to mask water
wars as ethnic and religious conflicts. Such camouflaging is easy because regions along rivers are inhabited by pluralistic
societies with diverse groups, languages, and practices. It is always possible to color water conflicts in such regions as conflicts
amongst regions, religions, and ethnicities. In Punjab, an important component of conflicts that led to more than 15,000 deaths during the
1980s was an ongoing discord over the sharing of river waters. However, the conflict, which centered on development disagreements including strategies of the use
and distribution of Punjab‘s rivers, was characterized as an issue of Sikh separatism. A water war was presented as a religious war.
misrepresentations of water wars divert much-needed political energy from sustainable and just solutions to
water sharing. Something similar has happened with the land and water conflicts between the Palestinians
and Israelis. Conflicts over natural resources have been presented as primarily religious conflicts between Muslims and Jews. Over the past two decades, I
have witnessed conflicts over development and conflicts over natural resources mutate into communal conflicts,
culminating in extremism and terrorism. My book Violence of the Green Revolution was an attempt to understand the ecology of terrorism. The
lessons I have drawn from the growing but diverse expressions of fundamentalism and terrorism are the following: 1. Nondemocratic economic
systems that centralize control over decision making and resources and displace people from productive
employment and livelihoods create a culture of insecurity. Every policy decision is translated into the politics of ―we‖ and ―they.‖
―We‖ have been unjustly treated, while ―they‖ have gained privileges. 2. Destruction of resource rights and erosion of democratic control of natural resources, the
economy, and means of production undermine cultural identity. With identity no longer coming from the positive experience of being a farmer, a craftsperson, a
teacher, or a nurse, culture is reduced to a negative shell where one identity is in competition with the ―other‖ over scarce resources that define economic and
political power. 3. Centralized economic systems also erode the democratic base of politics. In a democracy, the economic agenda is the political agenda. When the
former is hijacked by the World Bank, the IMF, or the WTO, democracy is decimated. The only cards left in the hands of politicians eager to garner votes are those
of race, religion, and ethnicity, which subsequently give rise to fundamentalism. And fundamentalism effectively fills the vacuum left by a decaying democracy.
Economic globalization is fueling economic insecurity, eroding cultural diversity and identity, and assaulting
the political freedoms of citizens. It is providing fertile ground for the cultivation of fundamentalism and
terrorism. Instead of integrating people, corporate globalization is tearing apart communities. The survival of people and democracy are
contingent on a response to the double fascism of globalization – the economic fascism that destroys
people‘s rights to resources and the fundamentalist fascism that feeds on people‘s displacement,
dispossession, economic insecurities, and fears. On September 11, 2001, the tragic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and at the
Pentagon unleashed a ―war against terrorism‖ promulgated by the US government under George W. Bush. Despite the rhetoric, this war will not contain terrorism
                                                                                   The new war is in fact
because it fails to address the roots of terrorism – economic insecurity, cultural subordination, and ecological dispossession.
creating a chain reaction of violence and spreading the virus of hate. And the magnitude of the damage to the
earth caused by ―smart‖ bombs and carpet bombing remains to be seen.

                                                                       22 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                WIKE

                                                     CLEAN WATER ADD-ON 3/3


Richard Appelbaum, Ex. Com. Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society @ UC Santa Barbara, Gary Gereffi, Dir. Ctr on Globalization, Governance &
Competitiveness, Rachel Parker, Grad Fellow @ Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society, & Ryan Ong, Research Associate @ Ctr. On Globalization,
OFF?‖, Paper prepared for SASE 2006 Conference ―Constituting Globalisation: Actors, Arenas, and Outcomes‖, July 2, 2006, p.

Nanotechnology can provide inexpensive, portable, and easily cleaned systems that purify, detoxify, and
desalinate water more efficiently than do conventional bacterial and viral filters. Nanofilter systems consist
of ―intelligent‖ membranes that can be designed to filter out bacteria, viruses, and the great majority of water
contaminants. Nanoporous zeolites, attapulgite clays (which can bind large numbers of bacteria and toxins), and nanoporous
polymers (which can bind 100,000 times more organic contaminants than can activated carbon) can all be used for water purification.

                                                                 23 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                       WIKE

                                                                   POVERTY ADD-ON


Gilligan, 1997, (James, MD and Psychiatrist, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School, Violence: Reflections on a
National Epidemic, p. 195-6)

The 14to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year
from armed conflict Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political
violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide – or about eight million per year, 1939-
                                                                                                             even a hypothetical
1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and
nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural
violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die
because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every
single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi
genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,
thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout
the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and
epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the
two forms of violence – structural or behavioral – is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.


Bryan Bruns, Sociologist & Independent Consultant for CRN, ―Applying Nanotechnology to the Challenges of Global Poverty‖ Center for Responsible
Nanotechnology, 2008, p. http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/AdvNano2004/Abstracts/Bruns/

Billions of people around the world still suffer from inadequate access to clean water, energy, information,
shelter, health care, and other basic needs. Even with continuing progress in poverty reduction, many people will probably still be poor when
molecular manufacturing technologies become available. Advanced nanotechnologies could help poor people improve their
lives, if developed in ways that are appropriate and accessible. This presentation uses examples of potential molecular
manufacturing products to illustrate future opportunities and strategies for applying nanotechnology to reduce global poverty and promote sustainable prosperity.
Research and development of appropriate applications could increase the potential benefits from applying advanced nanotechnology. Point-of-use                water
filtration could purify water for those who do not have clean and reliable water supplies. Solar cells
integrated into roofing panels could yield a safe and sustainable source of inexpensive energy. Continuing
drastic reductions in the cost of information technologies, enabled by nanotechnology, would facilitate
universal access to computing and communications. Packaging of integrated systems applying advanced
nanotechnology for diagnostic testing, custom formulation of medication, and targeted delivery of
treatments, could help deliver medical care where doctors and hospitals are scarce. Materials formulated with
molecular precision could provide better shelter and tools. Molecular manufacturing could enable clean
production and new methods for environmental remediation, enabling global abundance to be both feasible
and sustainable. Actual applications of nanotechnology will depend on a range of factors, including the evolution of related technologies such as
biotechnology and information technology, economic systems, and institutions regulating intellectual property. Illustrative examples of possible applications such
as those discussed above, may be useful for planning scenarios, identifying objectives for research and development, and formulating strategies to improve access
to the benefits of advanced nanotechnology.

                                                                        24 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                WIKE

                                                          DEVELOPMENT ADD-ON


Mike Trender, Ex. Dir. Of CRN, & Chris Phoenix, Dir. Of Research @ CRN, ―Overview of CRN‘s Current Findings‖, Center for Responsible
Nanotechnology, Apr. 16, 2007, p. http://www.crnano.org/early.htm

Technology, applied appropriately, can mitigate many current problems. Large areas of the world currently suffer
from a lack of technological infrastructure. This is currently a self-perpetuating problem. Portable, rapid,
flexible manufacturing could solve it quickly. Health requires sanitation; efficient trading and democratic
government require communications. Sanitation and communication could be supplied almost trivially with
MNT. This would save millions of lives in the poorest areas of the world, and greatly increase global
prosperity (which would provide vast new markets for commercial enterprises). Advanced technology can reduce much of the
current environmental burden. From a hut heated by a smoky dung fire to a mansion with kilowatts of incandescent lights (which are only 1%
efficient), people worldwide throw away most of the energy they consume. The same is true of potable water—most of it is used for industry and agriculture. In
                                                  techniques require awesome quantities of material and labor
countries fortunate enough to have modern medicine, present-day
to keep their populations somewhat healthy. MNT will not magically invent the solutions for most of these problems. But once a
solution is developed, it can be applied quickly and globally at very low cost. If MNT is developed even a
few years early, and used well, tens or hundreds of millions of lives will be saved. Any risk that is
exacerbated by early development must be balanced against this very significant benefit.

                                                                    25 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                         WIKE

                                                             DEVELOPMENT XTN


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

Molecular nanotechnology (MNT), the design and construction of macroscopic materials at the molecular level, will play a major part of
solving the issues of both sustainable resource extraction and byproduct mitigation. Indeed, in the author's opinion this
is by far the most critical near-term application of MNT. Furthermore, MNT is the only technology that holds
promise for achieving something like a sustainable First-World standard of living for the entire world. Thus
forswearing MNT is simply not an option, despite naï ve calls for its "relinquishment."

                                                                   26 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                           RAW MATERIALS ADD-ON


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the organization of matter has become progressively cheaper. A
more recent trend is miniaturization: the dwindling cost of organizing matter at smaller and smaller scales. The progress from vacuum tube to transistor to ever
more densely packed microchips is a familiar example. MNT will continue both these trends, and in those cases it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.      The
trends are important to energy applications nonetheless. How cheaply nanostructured materials can be
fabricated will be crucial in exploiting diffuse energy resources, as emphasized in the discussions above and below.
Conventional microtechnology, for example, is not nearly cheap enough for such bulk applications. A computer is
relatively cheap only because the chip at its heart is so small. The present high cost of microfabrication is the major problem that besets photovoltaics, for
                  A newer trend that MNT will also accelerate is "custom" rather than "mass" production.
example (section 2.5.11.).
Not only is fabrication becoming cheaper, it is also becoming more flexible. This is due, of course, both to increased
computer power and to computer-controlled design and manufacture. In the long term, probably the most important effect of MNT is what might be termed
"distributed fabrication": the local construction of artifacts out of local materials. The idea can be summed up by the slogan "Matter as software."
Technologically this is a considerably more revolutionary advance, but it merely replicates what biological systems do already. A
plant, for example, is not assembled by sending off to the leaf factory, and the root factory, and the stem factory, and so on. These items are assembled from
ambient sources according to a molecularly encoded digital instruction set: its DNA. Distributed "fabrication" (or better, "distribution") is already happening with
information products. Consider journal articles downloaded as .PDF files. rather than mailed as paper copies, or music distributed as .MP3s rather than as packaged
CDs. Even this embryonic sort of distribution has the potential of significant savings in conventional resources through minimizing paper and plastic usage as well
as transportation costs. Of course, further growth in such distribution will be as much a function of legal and institutional constraints as it is of
                   a capability will have a huge effect on the global transportation network. The enormous
technology. Obviously such
energy demand involved in simply moving around partly organized matter will largely vanish. Of course,
undoubtedly there will be a transition period. For example, simple chemical feedstocks are likely to be locally fabricated before complex machinery, much less
           since the transportation of bulk commodities such as raw ores currently accounts for a significant
foodstuffs. But
part of global energy costs, even primitive distributed capabilities will have a non-negligible effect.

                                                                       27 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                         WIKE

                                                    GEOTHERMAL POWER ADD-ON 1/3


Prachi Patel-Predd, staff writer, ―The Great Forgotten Clean-Energy Source: Geothermal‖, Discover Magazine, April 3, 2008, p.

If we could extract all the geothermal energy that exists underneath the United States to a depth of two miles, it
would supply America‘s power demands (at the current rate of usage) for the next 30,000 years. Getting at all that
energy is not feasible—there are technological and economic impediments—but drawing on just 5 percent of the
geothermal wealth would generate enough electricity to meet the needs of 260 million Americans. The Department
of Energy‘s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) asserts that reaching that 5 percent level, which would produce 260,000 megawatts
of electric power and reduce our dependence on coal by one-third, is doable by 2050. So what is holding us back? Tapping geothermal energy
means facing the harsh realities of thermodynamics: Typically, geothermal electricity is generated when hot water or steam underground is piped to the surface to
drive a turbine, usually through heating an intermediate working fluid that actually turns the turbine‘s blades. The turbine drives a dynamo that then produces the
electricity. Crucially, the temperature of the piped-up water dictates the efficiency of a turbine-based system: the hotter the better, with a minimum of about 200
degrees Fahrenheit needed. But there is a limited number of geothermal hot spots that naturally contain water and that heat it to such high temperatures at
accessible depths. Probably the best example of one in the United States is The Geysers. In a valley 72 miles north of San Francisco, steam billows from the earth‘s
surface. (This prompted the first European visitor to the site, in 1847, to believe he had discovered the gates of hell.) An elaborate array of gleaming metal pipes
brings steam up from underground to drive turbines that generate 850 megawatts of electricity. Doug Glaspey, chief operating officer of U.S. Geothermal, an
Idaho-based company that just finished building a 13-megawatt geothermal electrical plant in southern Idaho, says he wishes he had ―X-ray vision, so I could see
where the reservoirs are. The highest-risk part of this business, bar none, is searching for reservoirs. Drilling a well costs two to three million dollars per well. If it
fails, you got nothing.‖ Moreover, once companies hit a good hot spot, they still have to set up a power plant or a heating system, which requires big up-front costs
and multiple wells. Glaspey estimates that it costs ―$3.5 million to $4 million per megawatt‖ to build a geothermal power station. In addition, geothermal
power plants have energy efficiencies of just 8 to 15 percent, less than half that of coal plants. High up-front
expenses plus relatively low efficiency makes the cost of geothermal electricity about double that of coal,
which sells for around five cents per kilowatt-hour. Gerald Nix, recently retired geothermal technologies manager at the NREL, believes that improving
exploration and drilling technologies could make geothermal power cheaper than coal, however. Current attempts to
refine these technologies fall under the banner of engineered geothermal systems (EGS), which can squeeze heat out of spots where the rock is not porous or
permeable enough for water to circulate, or where there is not enough water in the first place. EGS uses techniques such as reopening old fissures in the rock, and
then pumping water through the fracture. EGS could contribute at least 100,000 megawatts to the U.S. geothermal power budget by 2050, according to a 2006
report, ― The Future of Geothermal Energy,‖ written by a team led by MIT chemical engineering professor Jefferson Tester. What is desperately needed to advance
EGS, Tester says, are large-scale demonstration projects. ―It‘s not as if we don‘t know how to drill holes and fracture rocks,‖ he says, ―but we have to demonstrate
EGS on a scale that would be useful for commercial enterprise.‖


Scientific American, ―Combating Climate Change: Scaling Back Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Keeping the Lights On‖, May 8, 2007, p.

Power plants in the U.S. burned more than one billion tons of coal in 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's
Energy Information Administration. Nearly 400 million of those tons came from the region known as Appalachia, a swath of territory stretching along the spine of
the Appalachian mountains from southern New York State to northern Mississippi. These ancient mountains hold high-quality bituminouscoal, which fuels the
               power plants that supply roughly 50 percent of the nation's electricity and more than 40 percent of
aging coal-fired
the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide—the leading greenhouse gas. As a result, mountains are being
leveled to get at the coal that lies below them, clearing forests, polluting streams and destroying the health of
local residents. And, according to the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this state of affairs is
likely to continue as the U.S. and the world continue to burn coal for electricity. "Certainly for the next several decades,
the majority of electricity will be generated by fossil fuels in a fairly conventional way," says Bill Moomaw, an international energy policy expert at Tufts
University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, primarily because it is cheap and readily available. "If we're going to continue to usecoal we're going to have
to have some way of reducing the carbon dioxide." As a result, the IPCC summary notes that carbon capture and storage—trapping the carbon dioxide before it
escapes from the smokestack and pumping it underground—is a likely technology solution for mitigating climate change, along with a variety of other options.
"There is no silver bullet," says Harlan Watson, senior climate negotiator for the U.S.

                                                                        28 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                  GEOTHERMAL POWER ADD-ON 2/3


Daily Telegraph, April 23, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/23/eaclimate123.xml

Climate change could cause global conflicts as large as the two world wars but lasting for centuries unless
the problem is controlled, a leading defence think tank has warned.The Royal United Services Institute said a tenfold increase in research spending,
comparable to the amount spent on the Apollo space programme, will be needed if the world is to avoid the worst effects of changing temperatures. However the
        the world's response to the threats posed by climate change, such as rising sea levels and migration,
group said
had so far been "slow and inadequate," because nations had failed to prepare for the worst-case scenario.
"We're preparing for a car bomb, not for 9/11," said Nick Mabey, author of the report which comes after Lord Stern, who compiled an economic assessment of
climate change for the Government, said last week that he had underestimated the possible economic consequences. Mr Mabey, a former senior member of the
Prime Minister's Strategy Unit who is now chief executive of the environmental group E3G, said leading economies should be preparing for what would happen if
climate change turned out to be running at the top of the temperature range scientists are predicting. He noted that investment in energy research is ten times less
                                                                                                                                            the world
than the £10 billion a year (at 2002 prices) spent on the Apollo shuttle programme. Unless similar sums are poured into battling climate change
risks being caught completely unprepared if the climate reaches a "tipping point" where warming and sea
level rise began to accelerate, he said. Even if climate change was more benign than the worst-case scenario, the research would not be wasted
as technological advances in nuclear power, biofuels, carbon capture and storage and renewables were urgently needed anyway, he added. The report said: "If
climate change is not slowed and critical environmental thresholds are exceeded, then it will become a
primary driver of conflicts between and within states." It added: "Climate impacts will force us into a radical rethink of how we identify
and secure our national interests. For example, our energy and climate security will increasingly depend on stronger alliances with other large energy consumers,
                                                                                strategy for long run peace
such as China, to develop and deploy new energy technologies, and less on relations with oil producing states. "No
and stability in Afghanistan can possibly succeed unless local livelihoods can survive the impact of a
changing climate on water availability and crop yields."

                                                                      29 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                  GEOTHERMAL POWER ADD-ON 3/3


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf Information-intensive exploitation. As in so many cases involving the vagaries of natural systems, geothermal   energy is both diffuse and
additionally not very uniform.        Conventionally a geothermal "field" is exploited somewhat similarly to an oil field. Wells
are drilled for steam production, based on geologic and hydrologic models of the subsurface. Hence there is a great deal of practical similarity
to oil production: because of incomplete information about subsurface structure, fracture connectivity, flow
patterns, and so on, drilling "dry holes" (wells producing insufficient steam to be economic) occurs commonly and is a serious
risk. Thus, many of the ideas for information intensive exploitation also apply to geothermal power. Extensive downhole monitoring of
temperature, to monitor reservoir conditions, is an obvious first step, as are free-flowing microsensors for (say)
determining the fate of reinjected water. Automated fabrication. There is commonly significant variation in the temperature of steam
even from different producing wells in the same field. Hence it would be most efficient to use the steam from each individual
well to run its own optimized turbine. However, at present turbines are much too expensive to have one atop
every well. Conventionally, therefore, the steam from all the wells is combined in a manifold that feeds a single turbine. The additional expense of the
plumbing, and the efficiency losses, are overwhelmed by turbine costs. Cheaper fabrication, probably also with superstrength
materials, is likely to change this. Finally, as described for oil (section, superstrength materials are likely to have
a pronounced effect on drilling technology in the near term. Strong materials are even more important
for geothermal drilling because of the high temperatures encountered. In the far term, of course, developments such as automatic
burrowers seem possible but do not warrant more than a mention now. Thermoelectric materials. Turbines may not even be used with a
mature nanotechnological approach to geothermal energy. Perhaps the most interesting application of thermoelectric materials lies in geothermal power. In few
other cases are the difficulties of a working fluid so evident: temperature differences are often too modest, or span the wrong range, or else the fluid is absent
completely, as in the case of hot dry rocks. The subsurface "plumbing," both natural and artificial, is also critical but difficult to
ascertain, much less modify. Unfortunately, a working fluid probably cannot be eliminated completely. In the case of a geothermal system, the function of the
working fluid is not merely mechanical: it also gathers heat from a large volume, transferring it to a cooler environment so that a thermal gradient becomes
                   thermoelectric devices would allow replacing the mechanical turbines used in the current
available. However, better
conversion approaches. Not only would such devices minimize the problems with fouling, corrosion, and
mechanical mishap that plague conventional geothermal installations, they would allow direct use of lower
geothermal gradients, because the phase change necessary to drive a turbine would no longer be required.

                                                                      30 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                           WIND POWER ADD-ON 1/3


Eberhart 2006 [Robert, MFS Harvard, JD Candidate and Senior Notes Editor, NYU, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl.

Commercial fisheries are common-pool resources with government regulation justified to avoid overexploitation, and increasingly regulation has been extended to
influence impacts on fisheries that result from activities other than direct capture. n124 In addition to general wildlife, habitat, and use value impacts described
above,the development of an offshore wind farm could impact commercial fishing by limiting the waters open
for fishing or by influencing commercial fish stocks. Depending on the spacing between turbines, it may or may not be possible for
commercial boats employing particular types of fishing tackle to operate within the boundaries of the facility. Submarine cables also may prevent continued
                                                                                           Fish stocks may be
trawling operations in both the vicinity of the turbines and in areas around cables connecting the project to [*401] the grid. n125
affected by disruptions of bottom habitat during construction and habitat creation on the marine foundations
of the turbines. n126 The invertebrate reef communities that develop on marine foundations may serve as
habitat for particular fish species, which may benefit fishing industries if these species are exploited for
commercial purposes but could hurt commercial fisheries if the artificial reefs support non-commercial
competitors. n127

                                                                      31 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                           WIND POWER ADD-ON 2/3


Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 2003, p. L/N.

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have
thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs
provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food
production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally,
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the
basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary
elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's
ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine
ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance
is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral
reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness
among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly
valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860
maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the
ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters,
like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic
value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and
merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on
                  United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult
marine ecosystems. The
to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not
completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to
admit that most    of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving
marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be
unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will
take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a
monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly."
n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient
                                            alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with
pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an
shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being
repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of
governments to respond to the emerging crisis. n865 Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers,
forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-
functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.

                                                                       32 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                       WIKE

                                                            WIND POWER ADD-ON 3/3


Alexander Bolonkin, VP Consulting & Research Co. ―Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitudes‖, Mar. 22, 2006, p.

The primary innovations presented in this paper are locating the rotor at high altitude, and an energy transfer system
using a cable to transfer mechanical energy from the rotor to a ground power station. The critical factor for
this transfer system is the weight of the cable, and its air drag. Twenty years ago, the mass and air drag of the required cable would
not allow this proposal to be possible. However, artificial fibers are currently being manufactured, which have tensile strengths of 3-5 times more than steel and
densities 4-5 times less then steel. There are also experimental fibers (whiskers) which have tensile strengths 30-100 times more than a steel and densities 2 to 5
times less than steel. For example, in the book [6] p.158 (1989), there is a fiber (whisker) CD, which has a tensile strength of     = 8000 kg/mm2 and density
(specific gravity) of   = 3.5 g/cm3. If we use an estimated strength of 3500 kg/mm2 (        =7.1010 N/m2,      = 3500 kg/m3), then the ratio is    /   = 0.1 10-6 or
   / = 10 106. Although the described (1989) graphite fibers are strong ( / = 10 106), they are at least still ten times weaker than theory predicts. A steel
fiber has a tensile strength of 5000 MPA (500 kg/sq.mm), the theoretical limit is 22,000 MPA (2200 kg/mm2)(1987); the polyethylene fiber has a tensile strength
20,000 MPA with a theoretical limit of 35,000 MPA (1987). The very high tensile strength is due to its nanotubes structure. Apart from unique electronic
           mechanical behavior of nanotubes also has provided interest because nanotubes are seen as the
properties, the
ultimate carbon fiber, which can be used as reinforcements in advanced composite technology. Early theoretical
work and recent experiments on individual nanotubes (mostly MWNT‘s, Multi Wall Nano Tubes) have confirmed that nanotubes are one of the stiffest materials
ever made. Whereas carbon-carbon covalent bonds are one of the strongest in nature, a structure based on a perfect arrangement of these bonds oriented along the
axis of nanotubes would produce an exceedingly strong material. Traditional     carbon fibers show high strength and stiffness,
but fall far short of the theoretical, in-plane strength of graphite layers by an order of magnitude. Nanotubes come close to being the
best fiber that can be made from graphite. For example, whiskers of Carbon nanotube (CNT) material have a tensile strength of 200 Giga-
 Pascals and a Young‘s modulus over 1 Tera Pascals (1999). The theory predicts 1 Tera Pascals and a Young‘s modules of 1-5 Tera Pascals. The hollow structure
of nanotubes makes them very light (the specific density varies from 0.8 g/cc for SWNT‘s (Single Wall Nano Tubes) up to 1.8 g/cc for MWNT‘s, compared to 2.26
g/cc for graphite or 7.8 g/cc for steel). Specific strength (strength/density) is important in the design of the systems presented in this paper; nanotubes have values at
least 2 orders of magnitude greater than steel. Traditional carbon fibers have a specific strength 40 times that of steel. Since nanotubes are made of graphitic carbon,
they have good resistance to chemical attack and have high thermal stability. Oxidation studies have shown that the onset of oxidation shifts by about 1000 C or
higher in nanotubes compared to high modulus graphite fibers. In a vacuum, or reducing atmosphere, nanotube             structures will be stable to any
practical service temperature.

                                                                        33 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                                WIND POWER XTN


Alexander Bolonkin, VP Consulting & Research Co. ―Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitudes‖, Mar. 22, 2006, p.

Ground based, wind energy extraction systems have reached their maximum capability. The limitations of
current designs are: wind instability, high cost of installations, and small power output of a single unit. The
wind energy industry needs of revolutionary ideas to increase the capabilities of wind installations. This article
suggests a revolutionary innovation which produces a dramatic increase in power per unit and is independent of prevailing weather and at a lower cost per unit of
                 main innovation consists of large free-flying air rotors positioned at high altitude for power
energy extracted. The
and air stream stability, and an energy cable transmission system between the air rotor and a ground based
electric generator. The air rotor system flies at high altitude up to 14 km. A stability and control is provided
and systems enable the changing of altitude.


Pradeep Halder, Prof. Nanotechnology @ U. Albany, ―The Power of Nanotechnology‖, Nanotechnology Now, June 13, 2007, p. http://www.nanotech-

Perhaps the most mainstream acceptance of renewable technology has come in the form of wind energy, which is
approaching complete cost competitiveness with traditional energy sources. Countries such as Germany, Spain and Denmark are already beginning to utilize
                                                                remains enormous potential for worldwide
substantial amounts of wind energy to meet their growing electricity needs, but there
expansion in the wind industry. Nanotechnology helps to realize the wind's enormous potential through
various improvements in the efficiency of wind turbines. New lubricants that contain nanoparticles that act
like mini ball-bearings help reduce the friction generated from the rotation of the turbines, decreasing wear-
and-tear on the machine throughout its life cycle. Advancements in nanocoatings, such as de-icing and self-
cleaning technologies, also help improve efficiencies, rendering ice and dirt buildup on the turbines virtually
nonexistent. The most promising contributions of nanotechnology come from the integration of advanced
materials technology in wind blades in the form of nanocomposites, which provide lighter and substantially
stronger blades. Nanotechnology impacts the wind industry in general, by improving turbine performance
and reliability to allow for longer lifetime, less fatigue failure, and lower costs of generation.

                                                                     34 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                      BIODIVERSITY ADD-ON

Eric Drexler,, Fellow @ Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, 1986

Future planet-healing machines will also help us mend torn landscapes and restore damaged ecosystems.
Mining has scraped and pitted the Earth; carelessness has littered it. Fighting forest fires has let undergrowth
thrive, replacing the cathedral-like openness of ancient forests with scrub growth that feeds more dangerous
fires. We will use inexpensive, sophisticated robots to reverse these effects and others. Able to move rock
and soil, they will re-contour torn lands. Able to weed and digest, they will simulate the clearing effects of
natural forest fires without danger or devastation. Able to lift and move trees, they will thin thick stands and
reforest bare hills. We will make squirrel-sized devices with a taste for old trash. We will make treelike
devices with roots that spread deep and cleanse the soil of pesticides and excess acid. We will make insect-
sized lichen cleaners and spray-paint nibblers. We will make whatever devices we need to clean up the mess
left by twentieth-century civilization.

                                                              35 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                     SPACE EXPLORATION ADD-ON


Sander Olson, Mbr. Foresight Institute, ―Christine Peterson Interview‖, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, Feb. 2003, p.

Without molecular nanotechnology, it seems to be taking an awfully long time. Those of us interested in the topic are disappointed in the rate of progress. We could
                                                                        If we are going to get serious about the exploration and
do it without molecular nanotechnolgy, but it would be a very lengthy process.
colonization of space, then we need to get serious about molecular nanotechnology. There are people at
NASA who understand the potential of nanotechnology as an enabling technology. This is not surprising, since NASA is
an engineering agency, rather than a pure science agency. Shortly after we achieve mature molecular nanotechnolgy, we should
have both genuine machine intelligence and the widespread exploration and colonization of space. This
could begin to occur within years of mature nanotech.


James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory, http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-

We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can
use this period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and
help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a
manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our
species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned
                 states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have
spaceflight, Sagan
already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain
undetected. In Sagan‘s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human
presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will wander
space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagan‘s vision is part science and part
emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set
with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country.


Fred Koschara, computer programmer, 2001, http://www.l5development.com/fkespace/financial-return.html,

Potentially one    of the greatest benefits that may be achieved by the space colonies is nuclear survival, and the
ability to live past any other types of mass genocide that become available. We have constructed ourselves a house of
dynamite, and now live in fear that someone might light a match. If a global nuclear war were to break out, or if a deadly genetic experiment
got released into the atmosphere, the entire human race could be destroyed in a very short period of time. In addition, many corporate attitudes
seem concerned with only maximizing today's bottom line, with no concern for the future. This outlook leads to dumping amazingly toxic wastes into the
atmosphere and oceans, a move which can only bring harm in the long run. Humanity        has to diversify its hold in the universe if it is to
survive. Only through space colonization is that option available, and we had all best hope we're not to late.

                                                                      36 / 124
NDI 2008-09                      WIKE


                   37 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                             WIKE

                                                         NANOTECH INEVITABLE


Mike Trender, Ex. Dir. Of CRN, & Chris Phoenix, Dir. Of Research @ CRN, ―Overview of CRN‘s Current Findings‖, Center for Responsible
Nanotechnology, Apr. 16, 2007, p. http://www.crnano.org/early.htm

Science and technology are rapidly gaining competence at the nanometer scale. According to Ray Kurzweil's recent
testimony to the US Congress, "most of technology will be 'nanotechnology' by the 2020s." In other words,
before 2030, most fields of technology will make routine use of nanometer-scale components. At some point after
that, the seemingly miraculous MNT will be commonplace: regardless of whether Drexler-style nanosystems are ever built, automation and miniaturization will
have duplicated the important aspects of the technology. But MNT     almost certainly will be developed earlier. There will be
strong economic pressure to develop it as soon as the cost of development falls within the range of corporate
R&D. Given the national security implications, it's likely that governments will be working on it well before
then. And, as we explain here, there may be reasons to develop it internationally, before national programs can get started.

                                                                   38 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                             WIKE

                                                             EFRC UNDERFUNDED


Michael   Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Why don't we have a nanotechnology Apollo Program for clean energy?‖, Nanowek, Apr. 30, 2008, p.

Of course there are some government-initiated efforts in the U.S. like the FreedomCAR (how is that going, by the way?), or the Department of Energy‘s (DOE)
                                                                                                           The most promising
announcement last year to select 13 industry-led solar technology development projects for up to $168 million in public funding.
effort appears to be the DOE's Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC) initiative, a comprehensive effort to
accelerate the rate of scientific breakthroughs needed to create advanced energy technologies for the 21st
century. Unfortunately, the program has been set up as a typical government program – a timid effort,
ridiculously underfunded (given the challenge), glacially slow (commissions and committees have kept themselves busy since the beginning of
the decade "establishing the energy research directions"), and controlled by a bureaucratic federal apparatus. Rather than a
massive, Apollo Program type effort that would be justified by the scope of the challenge, the EFRC initiative gets a paltry
$100 million for a five-year effort starting only in 2009. To put this amount in perspective, $100 million is what the U.S. is spending
for 6.5 hours of the Iraq war. Or consider this chart:

                                                                     39 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                               SQ INCENTIVES FAIL


Dr. Jens Greiser, Strategic Marketing Manager at FEI Co.; Dr. Michael Dr. Naughton, Professor of Physics at Boston College; Dr. Bart Riley,
Founder, VP, R&D, and CTO of A123 Systems; and Dr. B.J. Stanbery, CEO and Founder of HelioVolt Corp, ―Current and Future Nanotech Applications
for Energy & the Environment – A Roundtable Discussion‖, Nanotech Briefs, 2005, p. http://www.nanotechbriefs.com/auth/people/people1_1206.html

NB: New program guidelines were recently unveiled by the U.S. Dept. of Energy for a total of $2 billion in loan guarantees to help spur investment in projects that
employ new energy technologies. Will this program benefit nano-related R&D? Dr. Riley: I can tell you that in   a small business you're very
careful about taking on debt, so it's not a particularly valuable source of money to a small company trying to
move new technology forward. In fact, I don't know any company that's going to take on a loan to do R&D; it's
just not what you do. And I don't think it's very useful to the innovation side of the process. Dr. Naughton: I totally
agree. I think the government could have announced a $2 trillion loan guarantee and while they might get
some more PR out of it, I don't think it would be of any more benefit. Dr. Stanbery: I am quite familiar with this program, and I
can tell you that the way that the question is stated is actually quite accurate; that it is a loan guarantee for investment in projects, application
projects, and hence, your R&D is not likely to get very much of this money at all. What it's likely to do is to reduce the investor's
perception of risk for implementing earlier stage technologies in application projects.

                                                                       40 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                WIKE

                                                         NO FEDERAL VC SUPPORT


Jacob Heller     & Christine Peterson, President @ Foresight Institute, ―"Valley of Death" in Nanotechnology Investing‖, Foresight Nanotech Institute,
2005, p. http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief8.html
The U.S. federal government spends billions of dollars on basic nanotechnology research. Venture capitalists are willing to invest billions more on nanotechnology
                                                                                                                            is a significant
products once a credible business plan and team have been assembled. However, in the challenging period between these two stages, there
gap in financial capital available to nanotech firms. With a few exceptions such as some Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) grants, the federal government has so far been unwilling to finance
research efforts within this gap, while venture capitalists are reluctant to take on the substantial risk that the
pre-commercialization investment may never become a marketable product. This gap period in capital
financing is commonly referred to as the "valley of death": it is where good lab discoveries go to die because
they lack the funding necessary to become a commercial product. Nanotech innovations are particularly at
risk for succumbing to the valley of death. Burned from the dot-com bust, venture capitalists are all the more
unwilling to finance technologies that are not close enough to being a saleable product, especially "platform
technologies" that have yet to prove their effectiveness on the market.1 There is reason for concern regarding
a valley of death in nanotech-based industries. Nanotech venture capital financing has accumulated in a
concentrated set of well-developed firms. For example, during the first quarter of 2005, all venture capital deals in nanotechnology went to
only four large, well-known firms.2 Venture capital investment is so low that all VC nanotech investment from 1998-2004 is approximately equal to the amount
                                                    valley of death is a serious concern, and is seen by many
that the government spent on nanotechnology in 2004 alone. The
industry leaders and members of Congress as the main roadblock preventing nanotechnology industries from
reaching maturity. If good ideas do not survive through the valley and come out as commercial products, the
initial research results lie unused. End-products — the inventions that actually benefit humanity and drive the economy — are seriously delayed.

                                                                     41 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                       WIKE

                                                        NANOTECH EXPANDING


J. Clarence Davies, Senior Advisor, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies ―Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology‖, Woodrow Wilson Intentional Center
for Scholars, Jan. 13, 2006, p. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=165552

The current age is characterized by accelerating technological development, and NT   is developing extraordinarily rapidly. The field was not
identified until 1959, when Nobel physicist Richard Feynman called attention to the opportunities in the realm of the ―staggeringly small‖ (Ratner and
Ratner 2002, p.38). In 2001, Science magazine named NT the ―breakthrough of the year.‖ Currently, there are several hundred different
commercial applications of NT. The National Science Foundation predicts that nano-related goods and
services could be a $1 trillion market by 2015. (Roco and Bainbridge 2001, p.3. This often-repeated figure seems to have little
analytical basis. See Miller et al 2005, p.175.)

                                                                  42 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                         WIKE

                                                       VC INVESTMENT DECLINING


Nanotech Buzz, ―Nanotechnology research funding up, venture capital down‖, Aug. 14, 2006, p.

More than $9.5 billion was spent on nanotechnology research and development worldwide in 2005, a
considerable rise as compared to 2004. But $9 billion of that was from governments and corporations, says "The
World Nanotechnology Market (2006)" report from Research and Markets. And VC's may be backing off even more in 2006. Venture
capital investments in MEMS and nanotech companies in the first half of 2006 were down 15.4% compared
to the first half of 2005, according to Bourne Research. Nanotech start-ups were the hardest hit, with funding down
38.7%. "I'm scared of anybody with nano in their name," said Kevin Landis, who manages about $700 million at Firsthand Capital Management in San Jose,
California. "With any new wave of technology, there's ample opportunity to invest in companies that don't end
up being the winner."


Neil Jacobstein, Chr. Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, Ralph Merkle, Nanotechnology Researcher @ Alcor, & Robert Freitas, Sr. Research
Fellow @ Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, ―Balancing the National Nanotechnology Initiative‘s R&D Portfolio‖, A Foresight/IMM White Paper submitted
to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, May 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/publications/whitepapers.html

Molecular manufacturing systems are likely to take longer to develop than the usual five to ten year time
horizon of the private sector. The private venture capital sector has shown considerable enthusiasm for
funding nanoscale science and engineering projects that focus on novel electrical or physical properties of
nanoscale materials. But they are not focusing on the high-risk, high-payoff opportunity of developing
molecular manufacturing components and systems with moving parts. There are some European and Japanese initiatives to
develop molecular manufacturing components and systems. The key rationale for U.S. government funding is that molecular
manufacturing might not happen first in the U.S., or will happen much more slowly in the U.S., if we rely on
the private sector for initial R&D stage funding. The question of who develops this technology first has profound economic,
security, military, and environmental significance. Existing NNI documents outline the potential impact of the technology in each of these areas.

                                                                      43 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                              WIKE

                                                                      NNI FAILS


Neil Jacobstein, Chr. Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, Ralph Merkle, Nanotechnology Researcher @ Alcor, & Robert Freitas, Sr. Research
Fellow @ Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, ―Balancing the National Nanotechnology Initiative‘s R&D Portfolio‖, A Foresight/IMM White Paper submitted
to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, May 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/publications/whitepapers.html

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) defines ―nanotechnology‖ as research and technology development in the length scale of approximately 1 to 100
nanometers. This White Paper proposes that the portfolio of NNI research and development projects should be balanced periodically to ensure a range of low-,
                                                   the recent interest of the venture capital community
medium-, and long-term projects, as well as a wider range of risk. Given
in nanotechnology, it would make sense to focus more NNI projects on high-risk, high-payoff R&D that
would be outside the time horizon of the private sector. This action would be consistent with the need to
increase the performance and accountability of federally funded research programs.

                                                                    44 / 124
NDI 2008-09                            WIKE


                   45 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE



Chris Morrison, staff writer, ―The Race is on for solar parity; what will happen to demand?‖, Venture Beat, June 23,         2008, p.

Solar panels, the critics say, will never be cost effective. Even with improved technology, or larger, more efficient manufacturing facilities, they can‘t compete with
coal, natural gas or nuclear anytime soon. Research firm iSuppli has another story: Solar    panels, they say in a new study, will be on par with the
grid in 2012, four years from now. That‘s only for for rooftops in regions with ―plentiful and constant‖ sunshine, mind, but areas with only moderate amounts
of sunlight (like Germany, the world‘s solar capital) are expected to catch up within six years. While some companies have predicted equally speedy grid-parity,
iSuppli is a major research firm known worldwide for tracking consumer products, and components like displays and semiconductors. Its attention to photovoltaics
                                                                                manufacturing will be on par with the
is an acknowledgement of their growing importance — in fact, the report says, photovoltaic
semiconductor industry even sooner, churning out 12 gigawatts of panels a year by 2010. That‘s a slightly larger supply than
some other studies have predicted, and according to many analysts, that growth should be a reason for worry
in the solar industry. Most predictions put supply well ahead of demand, a scenario that would force prices
down, and some companies out of business. But it appears that manufacturers are anticipating being able to handle the shock; those surveyed
for the report expect their sales to increase by as much as 50 percent each year over the next few years, and several are planning massive gigawatt-scale
                            confidence is likely because of the grid parity issue, which could significantly
manufacturing facilities. In part, that
change the equation. Analysts typically predict measured, formula-based demand curves based on standard
economics. That doesn‘t take into account market demand driven by unforeseen issues, like skyrocketing
electricity prices, and growing consumer awareness of issues like global warming. In fact, most of the solar installers and
service companies that I‘ve spoken with say that interest in having solar installed is higher than reports suggest — and where solar is pushed, sales are also higher
than expected. Consumers simply aren‘t aware yet of all the different options for installing solar — although that, too, is changing. And some are simply waiting
                 solar panels reach grid parity, that means they‘ll become a smart economic choice for
for a better deal. When
nearly anyone, not just people in areas with high rebate levels. By then, most consumers will be aware of different options that exist,
from power purchase agreements, to solar panel leasing, to bargain-basement buys like the $2,000 solar system that Sungevity announced today. Separately,
cities and towns seem to be realizing that solar is a good alternative to operating peaker plants, and putting
investments into their own large systems or leasing out land for panels. Utilities, also, are interested in
municipal solar, because it helps them avoid plowing money into new plants. Instead of growth in silicon-based panels, what
seems to be the wild card for photovoltaics is competition from thin-film manufacturers like Nanosolar, Heliovolt and now IBM. We‘ll be on the look out for a
study that tells photovoltaic makers how to deal with thin-film panels that are a third the price — and rapidly catching up in efficiency.

                                                                       46 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE



Christian Science Monitor, ―Study: Solar to be competitive within a decade‖, June 18, 2008, p.

A new study claims that solar power is approaching ―grid parity,‖ in which costs are competitive with
conventional retail electric rates throughout much of the United States. The Utility Solar Assessment Study, released by the
research firm Clean Edge Inc. and the nonprofit ―green-economy‖ group Co-op America, says that as costs for solar panels and concentrating
solar energy systems decline and as costs for coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the US will reach a
―crossover point‖ around 2015: For the first time in modern history, the price of solar-generated electricity is
within striking distance of conventional energy sources for a wide range of applications. Already, solar power can
compete in regions with high electricity rates and with favorable incentives. It can compete effectively for peak power production, in grid-constrained territories,
and for applications that are off the grid. According to its authors, the study is based on more than 30 interviews with solar, utility, financial, and policy
                       proper investment, solar power can reach 10 percent of US power generation by
experts. The report says that, with
2025. The US currently gets less than one tenth of one percent from solar, but it has been growing quickly. Solar power has
jumped to 3,000 megawatts in 2008 from 600 MW in 2003, the study says. Reaching 10 percent, says the study, will require between $450 billion and $560 billion
in capital costs by 2025, an average of $26 billion to $33 billion per year. That sounds like a lot, but the report points out: To put the projected investment in
perspective, the Edison Electric Institute estimates that the U.S. electric utility industry spent more than $70 billion on new power plants and new transmission and
distribution investments in 2007 alone. Conservatively assuming similar expenditures between now and 2025 (and most experts believe those annual costs will
increase), we‘re talking about a total investment of more than $1.2 trillion—roughly double to triple our projected investment for solar in the U.S. The report notes
that 2007 was the first year that the use of silicon by the world‘s solar companies exceeded use by computer chip makers. This initially led to a spike in prices, but
the costs are now beginning to drop. The Guardian reported on Monday that a number of solar panel manufacturers are planning on dramatically increasing their
output in the coming years. Many companies are also planning on producing ―thin film‖ solar panels, which are cheaper than traditional silicon panels but are less
efficient. Another factor boosting solar power is Google‘s RE<C initiative, which seeks to develop renewable energies that cost less than coal. In 2007, the internet
search giant installed what at the time was the nation‘s largest commercially-owned solar array at its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters. In   the right
fiscal environment, solar power‘s cost-effectiveness could accelerate further.

                                                                       47 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                         SOLAR INDUSTRY GROWTH


Investor’s Business Daily, ―A Sunny Forecast for Solar‖, June 6, 2008, p.

The Middle East is known as the oil center of the world, but some in the region are looking skyward for the new source of energy: solar. Last month, a government-
backed company in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, announced a $2 billion investment in an emerging solar technology that could put it among the larger
companies in the global industry in the next five years. Initially, the investment will build plants in Germany and Abu Dhabi, but later could go to sites in the U.S.
and Asia, says Steven Geiger, director of special projects for Masdar, the company behind the solar effort. "We believe that we can be a player," Geiger said. The
new investments are just another sign of solar's growing clout in the world. Companies from Germany to
China to the U.S. are tapping into the industry's rapid growth. Although questions remain about which
companies will win, there's been plenty of overall growth to make the solar sector one of the market's best
performers. As of Friday, "other" energy ranked No. 2 among IBD's 197 industry groups. The group is large, with 86 stocks. Solar stocks dominate the group,
but it also includes companies with ties to wind, biofuels, coal and the process of turning trash into electricity. Solar is a clear standout. But in a twist, the other
top-performing companies are in coal. Although coal and solar may seem strange bedfellows, they are both benefiting from rising demand for energy around the
globe, observers say. Arch Coal, (ACI) one of the top coal performers, saw sales growth of 22% in the first quarter. "In the last five years, coal usage has grown by
about 30%," said Steven Leer, Arch's chairman and chief executive. "It's just hard to maintain that supply growth to match the demand growth." Roughly half of the
U.S.' power comes from coal, and more than 80% comes from China. Leer says he welcomes solar's efforts, because meeting demand for more power in a rapidly
developing world is a task no single energy source can accomplish alone. "More people and a growing economy use more energy," Leer said. 1.
Business Solar is smoking-hot — and it can thank governmental bodies around the world for much of that
growth. Politicians from Germany to Japan to California have anted up all sorts of incentives to boost solar power usage. These incentives help
ensure that solar companies can compete on price with traditional forms of energy, including coal, natural
gas and nuclear technologies. These solar companies make solar products that tap the sun's rays and turn
them into electricity with photovoltaic technology. That's different from the more traditional forms of solar
power that use the sun's heat to spin turbines that create electricity; these are called solar-thermal
technologies. In the photovoltaic arena, companies make solar panels from a type of silicon called
polysilicon, which has been in short supply over the past few years. Companies such as MEMC Electronic Materials (WFR)
make polysilicon, but are part of IBD's semiconductor manufacturing group. Other companies, such as First Solar, (FSLR) use a thin-film process that avoids
polysilicon. Some solar manufacturers, such as SunPower, (SPWR) also have businesses that install the solar panels, not just make them. Others, such as Akeena
Solar, (AKNS) focus on installation. The industry is fixated on getting its prices in line with traditional energy sources in the next several years so it won't need
government incentives. To keep costs low, solar companies have focused on better technologies, bigger plants and manufacturing regions such as China to save
money on labor. In the meantime, demand    for solar panels has been strong enough to lift prices for solar modules and
panels. In the past month, companies have been reporting ballooning sales as they hike prices. Suntech Power Holdings, (STP) one of the largest solar
companies in the world, reported sales growth of 76% in the first quarter and earnings that roughly doubled. Name of the game: Get big or get efficient with
manufacturing to stand out as a low-cost leader — and hope the government incentives continue until you can lower costs. 2. Market Solar panels have wide-
ranging applications. The panels can be made small enough to fit on top of a home's rooftop, which has spurred residential adoption in states like California.
 Companies such as Google, (GOOG) Kohl's (KSS) and Wal-Mart (WMT) have installed solar panels atop their roofs to supplement their energy demands. In
addition, some utilities are beginning to look toward amassing photovoltaic panels to make small power plants.

                                                                       48 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                WIKE

                                                       SOLAR INDUSTRY GROWTH


Reuters, ―Big business seeks out solar as sector heats up‖, June 20, 2008, p. http://uk.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUKN2038699520080620?sp=true

Big business is officially going solar. This month, several of the world's biggest technology and manufacturing companies -- including Intel Corp
and International Business Machines Corp -- made major moves into the burgeoning solar power business. That could be the start of a trend as
corporate giants look to capitalize on the growing demand for cleaner energy sources. "These
announcements are a great indication of where the solar industry is going," Rhone Resch, president of industry trade group the
Solar Energy Industries Association, said in an interview on the sidelines of the Renewable Energy Finance Forum conference in New York this week . "This is
the beginning of both high-tech and energy companies getting into solar." Solar power still makes up a tiny
fraction of the world's energy consumption, but the makers of panels that transform sunlight into electricity
are enjoying supercharged growth due to heightened concerns about climate change and rising prices on
fossil fuels. In the last few years alone, solar companies including San Jose, California-based SunPower Corp and Germany's Q-Cells have grown from small
technology-focused start-ups into businesses with multibillion-dollar market capitalizations. Now, other companies want a piece of that fast-growing market. A few
tech companies, such as chip equipment maker Applied Materials Inc and SunPower stakeholder Cypress Semiconductor Corp, got into the solar business earlier
this decade, recognizing the similarities between their own industries and technology-driven solar power. With their proven successes, others are
following. "What the strategic players bring is that ability                    to bring large-scale manufacturing," said Kevin Genieser, who
heads Morgan Stanley's renewable energy investment banking practice.

                                                                     49 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                             SILICON SHORTAGES


Investor’s Business Daily, ―A Sunny Forecast for Solar‖, June 6, 2008, p.

The market for solar power stretches around the world.                             But Europe is the biggest player, with more than 70% of overall spending, says
Paula Mints, an analyst with Navigant Consulting. Germany and Spain make up a huge part of that market share. U.S.      market share has remained
small, at roughly 10%. Mints estimates that the overall market has grown about 30% a year over the last 30 years — and
40% over the last five years years. 3. Climate Demand has been stronger than expected, but that has sparked a
big downside: soaring prices for polysilicon, the key ingredient for making much of the world's solar cells. In
the past five years, the price of polysilicon has risen roughly 900% to beyond $400 per kilogram. Many solar companies try to land
longer-term contracts to manage costs and ensure a reliable supply of polysilicon. A new supply agreement can send a stock soaring. Analysts say by 2009 or
2010, new polysilicon manufacturing plants should help ease shortages. In the meantime, the   industry keeps a close eye on government
incentives.      Germany, a bellwether for the industry, spooked investors late last month when concerns rose that the country would cut incentives more quickly
than expected. Stocks plummeted, but recovered a bit a few days later when the government banged out an agreement. Still, some investors are watching the
situation nervously. "The subsidy declines were slightly more than investors were expecting," said Stuart Bush, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. Spain,
another key market driver, could soften demand with subsidy cuts starting next year. "Spain is still a prime risk to demand levels in 2009," Bush said. The
is a question mark. Legislation to extend incentives is still under debate. Past attempts to extend solar credits
beyond 2008 have failed. Still, other countries are showing more promise, including France, Italy and Greece. 4. Technology With the
industry worried about incentives and the polysilicon shortage, it's working hard to improve technologies to
get beyond these challenges.


Jennifer Kho, staff writer, ―Panelists Debate When the Silicon Shortage Will End‖, Greentech Media, Nov. 15,     2007, p.

 Is the worst of the silicon shortage over? At Greentech Media's Solar Market Outlook earlier this week, Prometheus Institute President Travis
                          At least for companies with long-term silicon contracts, that is. "The de-bottlenecking is
Bradford said the answer is yes.
better than we thought," he said. "If you do have long-term contracts or don't need silicon until 2009 or 2010,
yes, the worst of the shortage is over. But if you don't have silicon locked up, no, the worst of the shortage is
not over." The worldwide shortage of silicon has limited supply beneath demand, solar industry insiders say.
It also has squeezed margins for new entrants that have found themselves paying $300 per kilogram instead
of the $40 per kilogram silicon cost just a few years ago (see Could China Steal the Solar Throne?, Silicon Steals the Spotlight, Again,
Silicon Shortage Has Big Impact, Silicon Starvation). China Sunergy (NSDQ:CSUN) faces a class-action investor lawsuit related to its own silicon shortage and
LDK Solar (NYSE:LDK) faces allegations that it doesn't have as much usable silicon as its inventory says it does (see China Sunergy Troubles Continue, China
Sunergy Snags Silicon, LDK Says SEC Is Inquiring Into Inventory Discrepancy Allegations, New Details Surface as LDK's Stock Continues to Plunge).       "It's
become, not just a financial issue, but a survival issue,"

                                                                     50 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                           WIKE

                                                                 SILICON SHORTAGES


Jennifer Kho, staff writer, ―Silicon Starvation‖, Greentech Media, Sept. 4, 2007, p. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/silicon-starvation.html

When, oh when, will the polysilicon shortage end? Solar insiders continue to have a wide range of answers to this question. It's an important one because the
shortage has limited the growth of solar to far below demand. It also has boosted spot prices from $25 per kilogram a
few years ago to as much as $300, according to a report by the Prometheus Institute. An end to the shortage could mark the beginning of lower prices, greater
volumes and intensified competition among manufacturers. But wait, don't silicon refineries take years to build? Given the time
frame, you might think it's fairly clear when production will pick up enough to end the shortage. It's not as
though there was a paucity of announcements. Solar companies are signing long-term contracts to ensure a
growing supply, and silicon manufacturers are practically tripping over themselves to build new plants. LDK
Solar, Hoku Materials, Wacker Chemie and SolarWorld are among the many companies to announce more silicon production in the past few months. Despite
those efforts, the end is anything but predictable. While many new polysilicon plants are expected to come
online by 2010, analysts such as Piper Jaffray's Jesse Pichel and Photon Consulting's Michael Rogol forecast that demand will grow
much faster than the polysilicon supply. "The whole solar industry relies on 15 poly plants; we need 15 poly
plants a week," Pichel said. "There is no end of the shortage." And some are questioning whether the
polysilicon plants under construction now will meet their expected completion dates, he said. The plants are very
complex to build - "They're like little oil refineries," Pichel said - and it's unclear how the process is going because little public information is available, he said.
 On top of those issues, a shortage of trichlorosilane (TCS) - the silicon, hydrogen and chlorine compound from which high-grade silicon
is often made - has added another layer of complexity to the process, he said. Instead of buying TCS, companies such as MEMC
Electronic Materials, Hoku and LDK all have announced they will make their own. Adding TCS production to their new silicon refineries could mean delays,
Pichel said. Further unforeseen       complications could arise because the plants being planned today are much larger
than any that have been built before, Pichel said. "We haven't seen 3,000 metric tons come out of any of these
new players yet. We think a lot of the plants are going to slip." Company forecasts put the end anywhere between two to five years
out. B.J. Stanbery, CEO of thin-film startup HelioVolt, says the famine will ease somewhat in the next few years, but that silicon will continue to be
in short supply until 2012 or later. Suvi Sharma, CEO of Solaria, a concentrating-solar startup with a technology that claims to deliver more
electricity using less silicon, says the shortage will last at least the three years more it takes to build the plants that have already been announced - and possibly
longer. Even though the amount of new polysilicon capacity in the works is more than the amount that has been built in the last 50 years, the
announced so far are not enough for supply to catch demand. "Demand continues to grow and, once you're
behind, it's difficult to catch up," he said.

                                                                         51 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                         THIN-FILM PANELS SOLVE


Jason Szep, staff writer, ―As Energy Costs Sour, US Looks to Solar‖, Reuters, June 6, 2008, p. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN03423457

Although solar power is easily installed, building solar panels is expensive because of tight supplies of
silicon, their costliest element. Most industry analysts expect a constraint on silicon supplies to end within two years.
But they are divided on whether this would help or harm the industry. Some say a drop in silicon prices
would tip the scales from boom to bust by dramatically boosting supply of photovoltaic panels that make up
90 percent of sales in the industry. Such panels use refined crystalline silicon. But rival technologies are emerging such as
thin-film panels that require almost no silicon, raising the possibility of a costly battle in the industry over
which type of solar power will dominate. "The solar industry will look very different just two years from
now," said Ted Sullivan, a senior analyst at Lux Research, a New York market consultancy.nHe said he expects "a shake-out among
companies that aren't prepared to thrive in this new environment -- particularly crystalline silicon players that
haven't invested in new thin-film technologies." Those concerns have helped to cool red-hot solar panel
stocks, a volatile sector that also faces uncertainty over whether the U.S. Congress will renew tax incentives
that expire at the end of the year. Shares in California-based SunPower Corp are down nearly 60 percent this year, Colorado-based Ascent Solar
Technologies Inc has shed 50 percent and Evergreen has lost about 40 percent of its value this year. That compares to a heady 2007 when industry leader SunPower
rose 253 percent from the start of last year to the end, Ascent surged 785 percent and Evergreen shot up 134 percent. Some analysts urge investors to look beyond
volatility in the near term to a promising future for solar in energy-thirsty nations such as the United States, which could overtake Germany as the world's top solar
                                                                                         "While silicon oversupply in mid-2009
market within four years, according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, a lobby body.
is likely to pressure companies' margins, we believe investors at some point will become comfortable with
solar's improving costs," said Ronan Wolfsdorf, a solar and renewable energy analyst at consultants Macroenergy Monitor in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. "The solar market needs to cross this great divide, and a lot of that has to do with cost. But one
thing to remember is that tougher regulations on emissions of carbon into the atmosphere are going to
translate into higher prices for electricity produced by conventional sources," he said. "That will make solar
more competitive in the long run."

                                                                      52 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                                   VC LOVES SOLAR


Paul Carlstrom, staff writer, ―As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter‖, San Francisco Gate, July 11, 2005, p. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-

A study released by the Energy Foundation in March suggests that the United States could produce 2,900 new
megawatts of solar power by 2010 -- enough to power 500,000 homes -- if the cost is significantly reduced. Solar energy ranges
between $4 and $5 per watt. The report suggests market expansion will require $2 to $2.50. If the price breakthrough occurs, says Wooley, the
report's assumed price structure represents a $6.6 billion annual market opportunity. The Energy Foundation
report also says that solar energy could furnish much of the nation's electricity if available residential and
commercial rooftops were fully utilized. According to the Energy Foundation, using available rooftop space could provide
710,000 megawatts across the United States, whose current electrical capacity is 950,000 megawatts. "The
market is obviously huge, demand is huge. Besides, (alternative energy) is imperative in the world we live in," said Bill Gurley, a general
partner at Benchmark Capital in Menlo Park, an early investor in Nanosolar. As for recent growth in solar energy, Paula Mints, a senior analyst at the technology
research firm of Strategies Unlimited in Mountain View, says that 14,000 photovoltaic megawatts were sold last year, representing 54 percent growth in the
industry. Interest from VC investors    Mints says that VC interest in new energy technologies represents a positive
development. "It's very healthy for the industry. They (venture capitalists) see the growth and the
possibilities," she said. However, Mints also cautions against expecting immediate changes in the way energy is produced. She cites the long development
history of conventional solar cells. "It took 20 to 25 years to commercialize (conventional) photovoltaics," she said. High production costs are
among the reasons solar energy hasn't become a major source of electricity. The black, glasslike photovoltaic cells that make
up most solar panels are usually composed of crystalline silicon, which requires clean-room manufacturing facilities free of dust and airborne microbes. Silicon is
also in short supply and increasingly expensive to produce, so high manufacturing costs are the main reason behind high wattage prices. Long payback time As a
         cost of panel installation typically equals four to five years of expensive energy before production
result, the
costs are recovered and systems begin paying for themselves. With nanotechnology, tiny solar cells can be
printed onto flexible, very thin light-retaining materials, bypassing the cost of silicon production. "Silicon is
very capital-intensive. You don't need a clean room for plastic power where capital costs are one-tenth of
silicon," said Raj Atluru, managing director at the venture capitalist firm of Draper Fisher Jurvetson in Menlo Park, a major investor in Konarka. Konarka,
Nanosys and Nanosolar say their solar technology will reduce the time it will take consumers to recover production and installation costs to a matter of months. In
addition to being able to manufacture photovoltaic cells more quickly through printing, the companies also say that manipulating materials 100,000 times smaller
                                                       Each printed nanostructure solar cell would act as an
than the width of a human hair will provide more light- collecting capabilities.
autonomous solar collector, and sheets of these products would have more surface area to gather light than
conventional photovoltaic cells. The companies also say that the printed rolls of solar cells would be lighter,
more resilient and flexible than silicon photovoltaics. A rooftop opportunity If the technical hurdles can be cleared, the biggest money
will be found atop buildings. According to Matthew Nordan, vice president of research at New York's Lux Research, "The ultimate prize is rooftop distribution
applications," in which residential and commercial buildings would generate most of their own power. The companies envision mass production of flexible plastics
that would conform to the shape and pitch of rooftops or would be imprinted onto building materials like tile and siding. "Flexibility allows you to develop new
form factors. Why not integrate solar cells into, say, a Spanish tile?" said Nanosys spokesman Stephen Empedocles.

                                                                       53 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                       WIKE

                                               BLACKOUTS => NUCLEAR MELTDOWN


Public Citizen, ―The Big Blackout and Amnesia in Congress: Lawmakers Turn a Blind Eye to the Danger of Nuclear Power and the Failure of Electricity
Deregulation‖, 2003, p. http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/bigblackout.pdf

The blackout is a spectacular demonstration of the unreliability of nuclear reactors and the failure of
deregulation. It also highlights the shocking imprudence of congressional attempts to revive nuclear power and promote more deregulation. The only
things that nuclear plants can always be counted on to provide are radioactive waste and the risk of
catastrophic accidents and radioactive releases. Nuclear plants are also an albatross on the power grids, by
not contributing to post-blackout grid recovery, but requiring a first-priority input of electricity once the power grid has been recovered.
When a blackout does occur, their constant, inherent dangers are multiplied as the plants depend on unreliable
diesel generators to avoid catastrophic accidents. If backup systems should fail, it is only a matter of time
before disaster strikes. If that should occur, reactor communities must contend with unreliable alarm sirens and inadequate, unfixable emergency and
evacuation plans. The problems with nuclear reactors in times of blackouts are an extremely disturbing combination. And electricity deregulation, which
precipitated the blackout, has failed in every regard. It has resulted in higher prices for ratepayers, diminished reliability and a strained transmission system caused
by chaotic energy trading. Only the energy industry and its friends in Congress have benefited from the anarchy of a deregulated electricity market. The
energy crises that the United States faces have been created by electricity deregulation and a foolish refusal
to embrace safe, clean, sustainable energy sources. Failure by Congress to pursue this path is utterly pathological, and it puts the American
public at a greater risk of more blackouts, higher electricity rates and the danger of a serious accident at a nuclear power plant. Let us hope that this blackout serves
to put Congress on alert to cast aside the monied interests and make consumers' access to energy its first priority.

                                                                        54 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                               BLACKOUTS => ECONOMIC COLLAPSE


United Press International, 03 (8/18, lexis)
At that moment in time, no one knew how long the blackout would last, what caused it, whether it was terrorist induced or accidental failure and how widespread it
                                                                                   in the span of just nine
would be. In the end, Bush would learn it was the largest electric blackout ever. Though apparently not caused by terrorism,
seconds 50 million people in New York City and state, New England, Detroit, Cleveland, Ottawa and
Toronto would lose electric power, placing them in the hot, often waterless darkness. Thousands would have to walk
home; thousands would be trapped underground in subways, suspended in inoperable elevators, or at schools and theaters. But very quickly in the past two days
                        some very tricky issues were posed by the blackout that will not be easily answered.
Bush and his energy team found that
                                                                  in the long run the very nature of U.S.
The crisis over power in the United States may not be temporarily as devastating as Baghdad's, but
economic and social survival may rely upon correcting the difficulties.


Wollstein, 2001 [Jarret, NewsMax, 4/23, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/225247.shtml]

The energy problems Californians have experienced in the past six months are just a foretaste of what‘s
expected soon. According to Fox‘s KTVU News in San Francisco, this summer there could be 100 to 300 hours of blackouts, most
occurring during the middle of the work day when demand for energy peaks. That would mean chaos for California and severe
repercussions for much of the U.S.
California accounts of 1/6th of the U.S. economy. California produces most of the nation‘s fruits and vegetables, and is the epicenter of America‘s high-tech
industry. Most micro-chip and computer manufacturers are in California, and California is also the hub for much of our trade to the Pacific Rim. Major
energy problems in California would severely damage an already shaky national economy.
If the expected 100 to 300 hours of blackouts this summer occur, the effects on California residents and businesses could be disastrous: no traffic lights, elevators,
ATMs, air conditioning, refrigeration, computers, hundreds of businesses forced into bankruptcy, hundreds of thousands laid off.
Even if it‘s not that bad and blackouts are less severe, major problems could still occur. Food processors in California‘s
Central Valley, say it can take three days to clean up the mess created when machinery is stopped cold by an unannounced blackout. It can take four hours to get
                                  A cut off of traffic signals for even a few hours, can cause grid-lock the
newspaper presses up and running after a shutdown.
entire day. A few hours without power can also destroy days of production at high-tech plants. At plants which use
volatile chemicals, there is even the risk of chemical explosions when power shuts down unexpectedly, according to company spokesmen.
                                                             electricity prices are bankrupting people on fixed
California‘s energy crisis is creating another huge problem: Skyrocketing
incomes as well as scores of businesses. In San Francisco‘s East Bay-area, the price of residential natural gas has gone up 5-fold since last year.
Electricity has already gone up 40% and is expected to increase another 100% this summer. Many people on fixed incomes are being forced to choose between
eating and paying their utility bills. The situation is so bad that on April 16th, officials in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco, recommended creating "heat
shelters‖ for senior citizens who face cut off of electricity and no air conditioning this summer.
Businesses that don‘t have long-term power contracts are also being bankrupted. One Sonoma County rose nursery owner says he was forced to close his doors
when he was warned that his electric bill would increase $20,000 in December 2000 to an estimated $310,000 in December 2001.
The cause of the energy crisis in California and throughout the nation is over-regulation, a powerful,
environmental movement which has blocked construction of new power plants and transmission lines, and
local opposition to new power plants. As a result, not a single major new power plant has been built in California in over 10 years, despite a 12%
increase in population and a rapidly expanding economy.

                                                                       55 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                                BLACKOUTS COMING


Jason Leopold, frmr LA bureau chief for Dow Jones newswire, ―Three Years After the NE Blackout‖, New Zealand Scoop, Aug. 20,                2006, p.

Three years ago this week, a devastating blackout left 50 million people in the dark in the Northeastern United States and parts of Canada for nearly three days,
forced the closure of the New York Stock Exchange, resulting in a $10 billion economic loss, and proved that our domestic infrastructure is vulnerable to even
minor accidents and human error. Today,   the US power grid - three interconnected grids made up of 3,500 utilities serving 283 million people - still
hangs together by a thread, and its dilapidated state is perhaps one of the greatest threats to homeland
security, as opposed to, say, that vial of lip gloss in your purse or the bottle of shampoo in your travel bag. The slightest glitch on the
transmission superhighway could upset the smooth distribution of electricity over thousands of miles of
transmission lines and darken states from Ohio to New York in a matter of seconds, bringing hospitals and airports to
a standstill and putting an untold number of lives at risk. According to George Gross, a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
professor of electrical and computer engineering who specializes in utility policy, a serious lack of investment in the power grid
continues to put reliability at risk and is the "Achilles heel" of the country's electric system. "The August 2003
blackout was a wake-up call for the country to upgrade its transmission grid system," Gross said. "But the truth is that very few major transmission projects have
been constructed and, as a result, transmission capacity has failed to keep pace with the expansion of power demand." Immediately following the August 14, 2003,
blackout President Bush said publicly that he would see to it that the nation's aging power grid would quickly be updated in order to avoid future blackouts and to
handle the increase in demand. Severe power shortages and rolling blackouts have become a daily occurrence around the country over the past few years as
antiquated power grid is continuously stretched beyond its means - mainly a result of electricity deregulation - whereby power is
sent hundreds of miles across the grid to consumers by out-of-state power companies instead of being sent directly to consumers by their local utilities, which is
what the grid was designed for. For the most part, power companies maintain grid reliability by following voluntary guidelines designed by the power industry, just
like the voluntary emissions limits that the fossil-fuel industry says it upholds. Last year, Congress passed an energy bill that required mandatory standards that
included monetary penalties, but the rules are months away from being finalized. The US-Canadian task force that investigated the August 2003 blackout found
numerous violations of the voluntary standards, and concluded that utilities botched routine monitoring of transmission lines and failed to trim trees along
                      in the three years that have passed since the worst blackout in US history blanketed the
transmission passageways. Still,
Northeast, nothing substantial has been done to overhaul the power grid, and that puts reliability in jeopardy, and lives at risk,
as demonstrated by the dozens of scattered blackouts in the month of July throughout the nation this summer - one of the hottest on record. Since July, all seven of
the country's regional grid operators that monitor power flow throughout the nation reported record electricity consumption as temperatures increased. Blackouts
struck many parts of the country during the month of July, not because of a shortage of supply, but because the dilapidated power grid could not handle the amount
                                                                   Demand for electricity is expected to increase by 45 percent
of electricity that was sent back and forth across the transmission lines.
by 2025, according to the North American Electric Reliability Council, a power industry-funded organization that was named by federal regulators last month
as the new watchdog group in charge of overseeing the rules for operating the nation's power grid. Last year, US peak demand for electricity grew by 7.7 percent
over the summer of 2004, with double-digit growth in the Northeast and the Midwest regions. New England saw a 4 percent increase, on top of last year's 11
percent increase. New York also experienced a 4 percent increase, following a 13 percent increase last year.   "In some cases, demand has reached
levels that were not expected for another three or four years," said Jone-Lin Wang, a senior director at Cambridge Energy Research
Associates. "Very hot weather tends to cause more incidents of equipment failure in the distribution systems. Although the bulk power system provided adequate
supply, extreme heat and surging demand put the distribution systems through extreme stress, leading to some equipment failures and localized power
outages." But neither the Bush administration nor federal lawmakers have developed a comprehensive plan to handle, at the very least, the annual increase in
demand. Blackouts will likely become more frequent in areas like New York and New England, Wang said. "We are concerned about New England because there
is nothing in the pipeline, but some small renewable projects and wind," Wang said in an interview earlier this month with Reuters. "New England is in
trouble." The 2003 blackout led to calls for spending of up to $100 billion to reduce severe transmission bottlenecks and increase capacity so the transmission lines
can carry additional electricity from power plants to homes and businesses. But investment in the grid has lagged, and progress has been slow. "Demand growth is
forecasted to be 20 percent between 1998 to 2008, but the increase in transmission capacity is still below 5 percent," Gross said. "The need to strengthen the
existing transmission infrastructure, to expand it and to effectively harness advances in technology constitutes the single most pressing challenge for the country's
electricity system." Craig Baker, senior vice president of American Electric Power Co., the Columbus, Ohio, utility that operates the nation's largest private
transmission system, told the Wall Street Journal last month that federal intervention may help, but there's still the question of who will pay for the billions of
dollars needed to build transmission lines. "We're all looking at massive transmission expenses," he said.

                                                                        56 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                              BLACKOUTS COMING


Sovacool and Cooper, 07 - *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research             and professor of Government and
International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non- profit organization committed to reforming
U.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June,

The 2003 blackout prompted calls for up to $100 billion in new transmission investments to prevent
bottlenecks and relieve strained power lines. But investment continues to lag woefully. While electricity demand is
forecast to grow by 20 percent between 1998 and 2008, transmission capacity is set to grow by only 5 percent.118 As a result, congestion expenses in
some areas costs more than $1 billion each year. 119
Some analysts estimate that just to maintain the current ratio of available transmission capacity per MW of electricity
demand will require the construction of 26,600 miles of new transmission over the next decade. Compare
this staggering figure with estimated planned construction of only 6,200 miles and the investment shortfall
becomes almost stupefying.120 According to an informal association of electric utilities in 35 states, maintaining transmission adequacy at year 2000
levels will require quadrupling planned expenditures to $56 billion by 2011 (in 2004 dollars).121 Ensuring increased reliability will require even more investment.
As consumers demand more electricity than the system can deliver, U.S. ratepayers could soon face serious congestion-driven rate increases. The National Electric
                                   congestion will continue to increase and in some situations ―lead to supply
Reliability Council (NERC) warns that grid
shortages and involuntary customer interruptions.‖122
There is a growing consensus that federal leadership is needed to address an impending electricity
transmission crisis. Citing NERC concerns that increased volumes of power flowing across the transmission system could overwhelm bulk transmission
capacity, FERC proposed transmission pricing reforms in 2006 designed to encourage utility investments in the nation‘s transmission infrastructure.123
In testimony before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, FERC Chairman Pat Wood defended the proposed federal
intervention, noting that market-driven transmission investment ―was not keeping up with load growth, and that ―in every area of the country‖ FERC needed to
―accelerate investment in transmission infrastructure.‖124
B. Utilities Benefit from Congestion
                                                                                  Under normal market
Like prisons, transmission lines would almost certainly be inadequately funded if left to individual market participants.
conditions, some utilities benefit from limited transmission resources. When the transmission system is
saturated, less supply is available to meet existing demand, and prices increase. Market forces create
perverse incentives for some utilities to delay transmission upgrades unless or until they risk catastrophic
system failure. Even FERC has observed:
Market participants also complain that companies that own both transmission and generation under-invest in transmission because the resulting competitive entry
often decreases the value of their generation assets.125
                                         prices benefit some electricity generators at the expense of
Market dynamics can create situations where congestion
customers, who not only pay higher prices, but suffer costs from the increased risk of blackouts. 126

                                                                       57 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                         WIKE

                                                           LOWER PRICES KEY


Jason Szep, staff writer, ―As Energy Costs Sour, US Looks to Solar‖, Reuters, June 6, 2008, p. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN03423457

After decades on the fringe,   solar power is closing in on America's mainstream as surging fossil fuel prices and
mounting concern over climate change spur states, businesses and homeowners into a quickening embrace
with alternative energy. Panels bolted to roofs to convert sunlight into electricity are still too expensive in most regions to
compete with cheaper, less environmentally friendly fuels like coal without generous subsidies. Solar's high
costs have kept the resource out of reach for many residences and businesses, But not for long, industry analysts and
scientists say. The tipping point at which the world's cleanest, most renewable resource is cost-competitive with
other sources of energy on electricity grids could happen within two to five years in some U.S. regions and countries if the
price of fossil fuels continues to rise at its current pace, they add. "In the long run -- as in two to three years -- you should see
competitiveness especially with the grid in a number of regions in the world," said Vishal Shah, an analyst who tracks the
industry at U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.

                                                                  58 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                                     SOLAR BUBBLE


Ken Schachter, staff writer, ―Bubble Dims Solar Outlook‖, Red Herring, Mar. 20, 2008, p. http://www.redherring.com/Home/23990

Beware the coming solar bubble, a new research report warns. A coming glut in solar modules will turn out the lights
at some of today's solar players, altering the industry landscape by 2010, says Lux Research. The study, titled ―Solar State of
the Market Q1 2008: The End of the Beginning,‖ says solar industry revenue will continue its brisk advance from $21.2 billion in 2007
to $70.9 billion in 2012. But that advance will mask dislocations within the industry as companies unable to make the
transition from crystalline solar modules to newer thin-film technologies see their market evaporate. The
market "is now approaching a tipping point," Lux Research Senior Analyst Ted Sullivan said in a statement. "We project that the
supply of solar modules will exceed demand in 2009, leading to falling prices and a shake-out among
companies that aren‘t prepared to thrive in this new environment." The research also noted that 46 solar companies have listed
their shares in initial public offerings that raised $7.3 billion on major exchanges since 1995. Though three-quarters of those deals have occurred in the last three
years, the report found a share drop in 2007 as total funds raised sank 40 percent from the previous year's $2.2 billion. Lux also reported a spurt of solar mergers
and acquisitions, with 97 percent of the value of the $2.48 billion in 41 deals since 1995 coming in the last two years. Pushing the consolidation, the report
concludes is the thin-film solar manufacturing arm of semiconductor tools maker Applied Materials. Michael LoCascio, a senior analyst at Lux, warned that by
2010, crystalline silicon photovoltaic companies will find that polysilicon in greater supply, but reduced demand for their finished product as competing
                                                                    sales volumes, measured in megawatts, will
technologies like thin-film photovoltaic and solar thermal take market share. ―While
continue to increase, average sales prices will fall," he said in a statement. "The result is that revenues for crystalline
silicon PV will drop on a year-over-year basis in 2010 for the first time in memory – which will cool the
enthusiasm for venture capital funding and IPO events

                                                                       59 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                                    SOLAR BUBBLE


Keith Johnson, staff writer, ―Setting Sun? The ―End of the Beginning‖ for Solar Bonanza‖ Wall Street Journal, Mar. 20,         2008, p.

Many players in the solar power industry are optimistic that the silicon shortages hamstringing their growth and crimping their profits will end soon, leading to
happier times and happier shareholders. Not so fast, says a  new report out today by Lux Research, a New York-based technology research firm. Taking its
cue from Winston Churchill‘s verdict on sun-baked El Alamein—―The End of the Beginning,‖—the report says  the solar industry is going to
suffer some growing pains. Specifically, more supplies of pure polysilicon after 2010 will actually lead to a
mini-glut, depressing prices. Coupled with lower demand, more competition from rival solar technologies, and
an always uncertain subsidy regime around the world, the solar industry should fasten its seatbelts, the report says. ―By 2010, there‘s
going to be a one-two punch‖ for photovoltaic solar, the dominant part of the industry, says Mike Holman, Research
Director at Lux. That is, oversupply and fiercer competition. Even though the polysilicon shortage ―will last longer than most
expect,‖ when it ends, it will flood the market just as demand starts to taper off, he says. And thin-film
solar—the bit of the solar-power industry that doesn‘t rely on silicon at all—is quickly coming of age. Lux expects it to zoom to 28% of the market
from 17% today by 2012. Things aren‘t entirely gloomy, some solar power players said. While shuddering at the report‘s title, many agreed with the basic pretext.
―Over the next five years or so, supply will increase as polysilicon is commoditized,‖ said Mike Hall, president of
Borrego Solar Systems, which installs solar power rather than making the panels. ―This means that the installation cost for solar power
will diminish and adoption will increase.‖ As if supply-demand dynamics and rival technology weren‘t
enough to deal with, the S-word will still be in play. Subsidies are on the wane already in solar leaders like Germany, Japan, and Spain. The
U.S., by contrast, will still be a laggard even in 2012 because ―its morass of federal, regional, and local subsidy programs effectively adds to
installation costs,‖ according to the report‘s executive summary. ―The sector will remain almost completely hostage‖ to subsidy
regimes for the near future, Mr. Holman says. ―We don‘t see it becoming cost-competitive‖ with current
technologies by 2012, he said.

                                                                      60 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                                    SOLAR BUBBLE


Matthew Wald, staff writer, ―Venture Capital Rushes into Alternative Energy‖, Apr. 30, 2007, p.

Money is flowing into alternative energy companies so fast that ―the warning signs of a bubble are
appearing,‖ according to a report on investment in clean technology by a New York research firm, Lux Research. The report also suggests that companies that
make equipment to cleanse air or water, or that process waste, have been overlooked by investors. Matthew M. Nordan, president of Lux, said that the
amount of venture capital put into clean energy investments last year was $1.5 billion, up 141 percent from the $623
million of 2005, and that in the same period, initial public offerings by companies in this sector rose to $4.1 billion, from $1.6 billion in 2005. The initial public
offerings were primarily in companies involved in solar power or biofuels, according to the report, to be released today. The investment is driven by
fear that the peak of oil production is approaching, he said, and by the possibility of new taxes or other restraints
in an effort to curb global warming gases, principally the carbon dioxide that is given off by burning fossil
fuels. Money is ―sitting on the shelf‖ waiting to be invested, and investors are now chasing entrepreneurs, he
said, rather than the other way around. ―When you see venture capital more than double from one year to the next, and
I.P.O. values double from one year to the next, that‘s the sign of a bubble in the making,‖ said Mr. Nordan. As an
example of a new participant in the booming market, he cited DFJ Element, a venture capital fund formed last year to invest in clean technology companies. It had
a goal of $150 million, but was closed to new investors by the sponsoring companies, Element Venture Partners and Draper Fisher Jurvetson, last June when it
                             said that his company counted about 1,500 clean technology start-ups globally,
reached $284 million. Mr. Nordan
930 of them in the energy field. ―One hundred ninety-eight have received some venture capital funding,‖ he
said. ―That‘s a pretty high share; generally, we see one out of 10 with some venture capital.‖ The investors, and the
companies they finance, are chasing an enormous market. Mr. Nordan pointed out that China planned to derive 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources,
not counting large hydro projects, by 2010. Meeting that goal would require six gigawatts of electricity, which if produced by solar cells would represent more than
two years‘ output of all of the solar cell factories in the world today. While many — and probably most — of the start-ups are pursuing technologies that will not
be commercially successful, even some alternative energy companies using established technologies may be on shaky financial ground, according to the report.

                                                                      61 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                          SILICON SHORTAGES


Peg Fong, staff writer, ―Polysilicon shortage stunts solar growth‖, EcoGeek, June 10, 2008, p. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1738/83/

The consequences of a silicon shortage are limiting the growth of the industry. At some point over the next
five years, the solar panel industry will overtake the chip sector. But first there needs to be more output of
polycrystalline silicon, the cornerstone material used to produce solar cells that harvest renewable energy from light rays.
Polysilicon isn‘t just needed for solar cells. It‘s also used in the production of semiconductor devices used in
computers, cell phones and other electronic applications in addition to the quickly growing solar energy
sector. It is taking time for facilities to increase production to fill the demand, and the shortage is expected to continue until 2010. In the
meantime, prices are reflecting the supply problem. In five years, the price for polysilicon has skyrocketed from
$40 per kg in 2003 to as much as $400 per kg recently.

                                                                 62 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                               LOW QUALITY SILICON


Datamonitor, ―Solar PV industry: cutting corners to offset silicone supply limitations?‖ TradingMarkets.com, June 20, 2008, p.

Solar PV cell manufacturers are aware of the need to cut costs to make solar power generation more
competitive and eventually have it reach grid parity. As traditional silicon is in short supply, some manufacturers are
turning to lower quality metallurgical silicon to achieve cost reductions. This move, while controversial, is vital to the long-term
success of the industry. Despite the economic downturn, continuing raw material supply limitations and high prices,
the solar photovoltaics (PV) industry enjoyed very strong growth in 2007, on the back of government subsidies and
record investment appetite. However, in the majority of markets, solar power generation is not competitive with
conventional energy, and it is only slowly moving towards grid parity in the few markets where strong
government subsidies prevail. Therefore, as subsidy changes in key markets start to take effect, solar PV manufacturers are being tasked
with having to reduce their cost base in order to offset the proposed subsidy reductions, protect their margins
and, ultimately, enhance the competitiveness of solar energy. For grid parity to be possible, the PV industry must
rely on technological development, economies of scale and productivity gains so as to drive further
operational and cost efficiencies. Over the past few years, most cell manufacturers have increased their production capacity substantially in order
to keep up with demand growth. Silicon supplies are therefore more vital than ever for manufacturers to run their production capacity
at full regime. However, persistent silicon supply shortages are restricting such efforts and are driving costs in
the opposite direction. This spells danger for manufacturing companies. To warrant the record valuations that they are
fetching, they must deliver on high sales forecasts and rapid, sustained growth expectations. Some manufacturers are therefore turning to
metallurgical silicon to supplement traditional silicon supplies in order to maximize production capacity and reduce costs. However, the
performance of metallurgical silicon is under question, as its impurity levels tend to be higher. This reduces a cell's ability
to generate power from the sun which, in turn, can make a solar PV array less economically viable. In most cases, the
production cost gains will not offset the reduction in a cell's yield.

                                                                         63 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                           WIKE

                                                     JUMPSTARTS RENEWABLES


Carlo Butalid, Executive Director of a Philippine Solidarity Group in Tilburg, The Netherlands, ―Solar Energy at Grid Parity: Projected Effects and
Implications for Policy‖, Apr. 2, 2008, p. http://www.a2zstart.com/solar/gridparity01.html

Grid-parity for solar energy will not arrive alone. When PV attains grid parity, it will also signify the start of
an overall transition to a more renewable-energy based economy. Other renewable-energy sources e.g. wind,
hydro, biomass and geothermal are already economically feasible at current prices and level of technology but only at certain conditions. Solar
energy, on the other hand, has so far needed government subsidies to become feasible. Unlike the other forms of renewable energy, solar energy can be
tapped almost everywhere, and it is also scaleable (its applications range from pocket-size PV cells for calculators and appliances, to
hectares of panels). These properties of solar energy makes it the key link in the renewable energy package. This
means that with PV at grid parity, the whole renewable energy package would attain the breadth and depth to
force a shift in favor of renewables. It would then become possible at last for renewables to provide more
than 50% of the world‘s energy needs.

                                                                   64 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                           WIKE

                                                                   SPARKS R&D


Carlo Butalid, Executive Director of a Philippine Solidarity Group in Tilburg, The Netherlands, ―Solar Energy at Grid Parity: Projected Effects and
Implications for Policy‖, Apr. 2, 2008, p. http://www.a2zstart.com/solar/gridparity01.html

The achievement of grid-parity will not cause PV research projects to stagnate. On the contrary, research funding
and research efforts would boom as a result of grid-parity. Since grid-parity will arrive unevenly, with certain applications and regions
attaining it before others, the crossing of the parity border in one area will provide a stimulus for research aimed to
push the parity border in other areas also. If parity is achieved for sunny countries e.g. Spain, research will redouble for achieving parity also
for temperate zone countries e.g. Germany. After parity is achieved for large-scale solar plants, this would push the effort
for also attaining this for small-scale household use, and then to solar applications for vehicles (starting with ships

                                                                   65 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                                    QUANTUM DOTS


Michael   Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Catching a rainbow - quantum dot nanotechnology brightens the prospects for solar energy‖, Nanowek, Mar. 6, 2008,
p. http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=4832.php

Harnessing the power of the sun to replace the use of fossil fuels holds tremendous promise. One way to do
this is through the use of solar, or photovoltaic, cells. Large-scale installation already show the technical feasibility
of this technology although the major problem of photovoltaic solar energy - its relative inefficiency - still
needs to be overcome to make the cost of electricity produced by solar cells equal or less than electricity produced by
nuclear or fossil fuels. Until now, solar cells that convert sunlight to electric power have been dominated by solid state junction devices, often made of silicon
wafers. Efforts are being made in laboratories worldwide to design ordered assemblies of semiconductor
nanostructures, metal nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes for constructing next generation solar energy
conversion devices. Quantum dots have been identified as important light harvesting material for building
highly efficient solar cells. Quantum dots are nanoscale semiconductor structures which, when exposed to
light at certain wavelengths, can generate free electrons and create an electrical current. Quantum dot
technology represents an exciting field of research in solar energy yet the actual research results to use them
in solar cells are relatively limited. By combining spectroscopic and photoelectrochemical techniques, researchers now have demonstrated size-
dependent charge injection from different-sized cadmium selenide (CdSe) quantum dots into titanium dioxide nanoparticles and nanotubes, showing a way to
                                                     'rainbow solar cells', these next-generation solar cells
maximize the light absorption of quantum dot-based solar cells. Termed
consist of different size quantum dots assembled in an orderly fashion. Just as a rainbow displays multiple
colors of the visible light spectrum, the 'rainbow solar cell' has the potential to simultaneously absorb
multiple wavelengths of light and convert it to electricity in a very efficient manner. "One of the most important things
we show in our new study is that one can use the same material (here, cadmium selenide quantum dots) to collect light across much of the solar spectrum" Dr.
                                the sun emits light at a variety of wavelengths, it is important to be able to
Prashant V. Kamat tells Nanowerk. "Because
collect as many of those wavelengths as possible to maximize solar cell efficiency. Cadmium selenide quantum dots have
long been known to collect light at multiple wavelengths, and have also previously been utilized in solar cells. However, this is the first study which directly
compares how different sized quantum dots which absorb different wavelengths perform when incorporated into solar cells." Kamat, a professor of Chemistry &
Biochemistry at Notre Dame University in Indiana, and a senior scientists at the university's Radiation Laboratory, and his team found that the smallest quantum
dots (absorbing the shortest wavelengths of the solar spectrum) perform the best because they move electrons through the cell (i.e. create current) at the fastest rate.

                                                                       66 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                        NANO KEY TO SOLAR


PhysOrg.com, ―Nanotechnology 'fertile' for energy breakthrough‖, June 30, 2006, p. http://www.physorg.com/news70897841.html

"Energy is one of the greatest challenges of the century," Claude Canizares, MIT's Bruno Rossi Professor of Physics, told attendees of
the conference produced by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' (ASME's) Nanotechnology Institute. "We need significant
breakthroughs in science and technology. The promise of nanotechnology provides fertile ground for such
breakthroughs." Nanotechnology's potential impact on solar energy in particular was addressed at the conference. "I think we'll see the
peaking of oil and natural gas sooner than most of those in the fossil fuel industry think," said David Carlson,
chief scientist at BP Solar. "By 2035 photovoltaics could produce about 10 percent of the world's electricity and play
a major role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions." Photovoltaics is the technical term for generating electricity from light. MIT's
Vladimir Bulovic said that nanotechnologies such as nanodots and nanorods are potentially "disruptive" technologies
in the solar field. That means they could cause a major switch in a primary energy source, potentially
proving more efficient than the silicon used in most solar energy devices today. Bulovic is fabricating quantum dot
photovoltaics using a microcontact printing process. "If 2 percent of the continental United States were covered with
photovoltaic systems with a net efficiency of 10 percent, we would be able to supply all the U.S. energy
needs," said Bulovic, the KDD Associate Professor of Communications and Technology in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

                                                               67 / 124
NDI 2008-09                           WIKE


                 68 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                            SQ STORAGE PROBLEMS


ScienceDaily, ―Promising step towards more effective hydrogen storage‖, June 18, 2008, p.

An international research team led by Swedish Professor Rajeev Ahuja, Uppsala University, has demonstrated an atomistic mechanism of hydrogen release in
                                               is becoming clear that cars of the future will have to move
magnesium nanoparticles -- a potential hydrogen storage material. It
from using the combination of petrol and a combustion engine in order to combat global warming and
potential oil shortages. One of the prime candidate technologies are fuel cells using hydrogen gas as fuel,
chiefly because hydrogen is among the most abundant elements on earth and is able of producing energy through chemical reactions with oxygen in the fuel cells
releasing only water - an environmentally benign by-product. Storing       hydrogen gas in a compact way is, however, still an unsolved
problem. Much research effort has been directed at absorbing hydrogen in metal powders, forming so-called metal hydrides. Magnesium may absorb up to 7.7
weight per cent of hydrogen, and has commonly been studied for this purpose, especially since fast loading and unloading of hydrogen can be accomplished by
adding catalysts like iron and nickel particles. It has been speculated that the catalysts act as shuttles, helping to transport hydrogen out of the material. With the
help of computer simulations of magnesium clusters at the quantum mechanical level, the Uppsala researchers and their colleagues have now been able to show in
atomic scale how this happens and why only a small amount of catalysts are necessary to improve the hydrogen release. The extensive simulations were performed
at Uppsala University's Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational Science (UPPMAX). "We expect the findings to aid further technical improvements
of magnesium-based hydrogen storage materials, as well as other related light metal hydrides," says Professor Raajev Ahuja.

                                                                       69 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                           MILITARY APPLICATIONS


Gerry Gilmore, staff writer, ―Hydrogen Fuel Cells May Help U.S. Military Cut Gas Usage‖, American Forces Press Service, Mar. 24, 2006, p.

Emerging automotive technology may eventually assist Americans -- and their military -- in reducing their dependence on hydrocarbon-based fuels for
                           agencies such as the Defense and Energy departments are working to adapt new
transportation needs. Government
technologies like hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered vehicles that conserve finite, pollution-producing and
increasingly expensive fossil fuels. The Army has been testing a prototype hydrogen-fuel-cell system installed within a conventional truck
platform for about a year now, said Bill Haris, a mechanical engineer at the Army's National Automotive Center. The NAC is part of the U.S. Army's Tank
Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center at Warren, Mich. The application is geared toward nontactical vehicle usage. A hydrogen fuel cell is a
                                                      coming into the fuel cell, he said, is chemically converted
device that produces electricity, water and hot air, Haris said. Hydrogen
into electricity and steam. "There is zero pollution," Haris said. The one-of-a-kind prototype is based on a Chevrolet Silverado, Haris
said. The truck's original engine, transmission and gas tank were removed and replaced with two hydrogen fuel cells and two electric motors - one motor drives the
front wheels and the other drives the rear wheels. And "the plumbing and the storage tanks for the hydrogen, as well as the brains to control all the energy flow"
are installed, Haris said. In comparison, a hybrid vehicle uses two types of energy sources to provide motive power, Haris explained. One type of hybrid vehicle
now being sold has an electric motor, a large battery used to operate the motor, and a small gasoline engine, he said. At slower speeds the hybrid's electric motor
moves the vehicle, Haris said, while the gasoline engine is employed during faster highway travel or to provide more acceleration. Hybrids are designed to provide
better fuel mileage and less pollution than a conventional gasoline-powered internal-combustion-engine vehicle. "So a hybrid is an extension of what you've
already got. It's taking what you have and adding things to it to try and give it a little bit more capability," Haris explained. By comparison, a fuel-cell vehicle "is
essentially a battery-driven vehicle," he said. Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles employ "a totally different technology than what you'd find under a conventional hood,"
Haris said. When viewing the motive system of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle "people just don't know what they're looking at," he said. "It's all very foreign." A
conventional gasoline-powered automobile will achieve around 30 percent energy efficiency, Haris said, while a fuel-cell unit will post about 50 percent efficiency.
 "That's where you gain your fuel efficiency," Haris said, adding that no hydrocarbon-based fuels, like gasoline or diesel, are used to power the Army's prototype
hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicle. Hydrogen fuel is available in both liquid and compressed gas form, Haris said. The industry, he said, is currently favoring compressed
hydrogen gas for fuel-cell-powered vehicle application. The Army's developmental hydrogen fuel-cell truck is capable of reaching speeds of 95 mph, Haris said.
But its current range of 125 miles per fill-up is only about half of hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles, he said. "That's one of the areas that really need to make a huge
step forward," Haris acknowledged. On      method under study to solve the distance issue is employing some type of solid-
hydrogen storage system. "We recognize it is a limitation and recognize that the industry is working really
hard to address it," Haris said. The hydrogen truck came on line last spring, Haris said. "It's an interservice program with the military," he said. The
Marines also have interest in the project. Leveraging commercial research on hydrogen fuel cells dovetails with DoD's
desire to harness private-industry expertise, said Harold Sanborn, an expert on alternative fuel sources who also works at NAC. "We
need to look at commercial technologies and find out if they are ready for military applications," Sanborn said.
 The hydrogen-fuel-cell-truck concept also "is a good starting point for discussion about modernizing our
bases and the base infrastructure to make our bases more efficient and cleaner overall," Sanborn said. Right now,
fuel cells are from five to 10 times more expensive than internal-combustion-engine-driven systems, Sanborn said. He also acknowledged that using
compressed hydrogen, a highly flammable element, does present unique safety and storage concerns. However, those concerns are being
addressed with success, Sanborn said. Some day military bases may replace their internal-combustion-engine truck fleets
with fuel cell or fuel cell/ hybrid vehicles, Sanborn said. "Then they could use clean-burning hydrogen in that application and drive those
vehicles in their duty cycles," he said.

                                                                       70 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                   TRANSPORTATION REVOLUTION


Alan Shalleck, CEO @ NanoClarity LLC, ―Near Term Nanotech Profits from Fuel and Transportation‖, Nanotechnology Now, May 28, 2008, p.

What will bring nanotechnology investors and Wall Street back to nanotechnology companies? Only one thing …
near term profits from nanotech products and services. Few nanotech companies are anywhere near
profitability today despite a push by industry mavens to refocus nanotech company efforts on products that
sell and generate cash flow. That the lack of profits affects how the industry is viewed was evident in the
attendance at the recent NanoBusiness Alliance Conference in NY City where Wall Street was clearly absent and most
of the attendees were at the scientific end or at the operational parts of their companies. PhD's always surrounded me at
this conference; not by the usual driving nanotech senior executives or investment bankers … and that was where the industry was years ago. It was a time warp. I
was puzzled by the phenomenon and worried that nanotechnology progress has not enough practical power to sustain the promise. Demonstrable
profitability is required immediately. Here is a possible quick strategy to nanotech company profits. First, a tale we have recently all
experienced. I was checking out groceries at a local supermarket and the clerk was complaining that he had to spend one day of pay each week on gas just to get to
a job that was a low paying job. He talked about fairness, economic viability and government assistance. He is not the only one now spending as much money per
                                                               do near term profits from nanotech products come?
week on gas as food. Therein lies a near term nanotech opportunity. Where
From the transportation sector, nanotech executives! $50 - $100 tanks of gas should spur every nanotech
company president to action. In business, follow the money. The money is now in nanotech opportunities to save fuel and energy. We are in a crisis,
people. Be creative and aggressive. Anything that will save the car owner, the truck driver or the automobile and truck manufacturers gas or diesel fuel money will
sell in our new energy "cost exhaustion" environment.Where might a nanotech company sell products to a commuter or truck driver? Think
miles/gallon. Clearly, one such opportunity is nanotech fuel additives that encourage better combustion and
exhaust that is more efficient. In addition, since friction is a cause of lower efficiency and lower gas mileage, nanobased cylinder coatings that
smooth "rubbing" surfaces or nanotech-based oil additives that improve cylinder lubricant coating would be other natural opportunities. Many companies have
created products for these applications but have yet to put them in play. Are you waiting for $10/gallon gas? Talk to any driver and listen. If you can improve his
gas mileage by 10-15% today with a nanotech coating or additive, he is going to buy your product. Sell it to him or her over the Internet … you do not need to
stock Pep Boys or the supermarkets. Just put your fuel-conserving product on the market and advertise it on the net. If it works, through guerilla marketing you will
be shipping more than you can manufacture. In this environment, customers will line up and profits will miraculously appear. The bigger nanotech miles/gal
increase play is with the car and truck companies. The auto and truck markets have reached a strategic inflection point. They need radically new engines with new
lighter, stronger materials and overall weight reduction. Nanoceramic based engine blocks and heads are lighter and stronger with equal lifetimes. In volume
production, these new engine blocks will be cost competitive, especially when applied to those inefficient dirty diesels. We have already seen some structural
changes based on nanosized ceramic particle strengthening in truck and car frames and bodies. In this new expensive fuel environment, cars and trucks need step
function not incremental weight reduction changes. Radical changes in materials are necessary for survival. All manufacturers now are
willing to spend extra on lighter and stronger if it results in significantly more miles per gallon. US car manufacturers have to make major design materials changes
or they will go out of business. Boeing did that with the 787 under Alan Mullaly. Do you think Mullaly is any less adventurous now that he is head of Ford? Call
                  is the new nano-market holy grail. Examine your technology and apply it to solve part of
him. Transportation
our energy problem in the transportation sector. Business is there for the taking and it can revitalize the
nanotech industry with profits. If that occurs, Wall Street will notice and return to the table.

                                                                      71 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                WIKE

                                                  NANOTECH SOLVES STORAGE


Richard Appelbaum, Ex. Com. Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society @ UC Santa Barbara, Gary Gereffi, Dir. Ctr on Globalization, Governance &
Competitiveness, Rachel Parker, Grad Fellow @ Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society, & Ryan Ong, Research Associate @ Ctr. On Globalization,
OFF?‖, Paper prepared for SASE 2006 Conference ―Constituting Globalisation: Actors, Arenas, and Outcomes‖, July 2, 2006, p.

Nanotechnology has the potential to provide cleaner, more affordable, more efficient, and more reliable ways
to harness renewable resources [such as solar energy]. One of the limiting factors to the harnessing of hydrogen is
the need for adequate storage and transportation systems. Because hydrogen is the smallest element, it can
escape from tanks and pipes more easily than can conventional fuels. Very strong materials are needed to
keep hydrogen at very low temperature and high pressure. Novel nanomaterials can do the job. Carbon
nanotubes have the capacity to store up to 70 percent of hydrogen by weight, an amount 20 times larger than
that in currently used compounds.

                                                                 72 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                      NANOTECH SOLVES STORAGE


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

As might be expected, transforming          chemical energy without thermalizing it requires controlling the reactions at the
nanoscale. (Nearly the only advantage of fire is that it's simple.) Thus MNT promises to make such transformations considerably more practical. As usual,
biosystems are far ahead of technology. Even though organisms are loosely spoken of as "burning" food for energy, biological systems are not heat engines and so
are not Carnot-limited. Rather than converting the energy of chemical fuel (i.e., food) to heat, and converting only some of that heat to work as it flows to a cooler
body, living things oxidize their fuel non-thermally, via a cascade of molecular-scale mechanisms that approach the reversible limit set by the difference in free
energy. Since they carry out their chemical processes isothermally in the range 25-40°C or so, the irreversible losses are also much lower (that is, the TDS term is
much smaller). Fuel cells. Probably       the best example of a technological non-thermal conversion device is a fuel
cell, which transforms chemical energy directly into electricity (e.g., Kartha & Grimes, 1994). Fuel cells first attracted attention in
the 19th century, but although practical fuel cells have been around since the 1960s, only recently have they begun attracting serious
attention outside high-value niche markets such as spacecraft. They have been beset with two problems: high
cost due to fabrication issues and limited lifetimes, and restriction to hydrogen as the fuel. In large part both
problems stem from the limited current capabilities in nanofabrication. As might be expected, converting chemical
energy to electricity without thermalizing it requires nanostructuring. In fact, the failure of 19th century attempts to
convert coal electrochemically into electricity, as well as the long delay in commercializing fuel cells,
probably stem from the need for cheap nanofabrication.

                                                                       73 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                      SOLID-STATE HYDROGEN SAFE


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

All-solid-state fuel cells are thus attractive. They require a solid electrolyte, a substance that conducts ions
while remaining in the solid state (e.g., Rickert, 1982). Present-day fuel cells operating near room temperature that use H2 incorporate a proton-
permeable membrane, which conducts protons from anode to cathode. The material used in commercial units is Nafion, a solid
fluorocarbon polymer. It is hardly ideal, being expensive and subject to degradation through dehydration. As with
any conventional polymer, too, there is hardly nanoscale control in its synthesis. The membrane pores are not uniform in
size or distribution, and the surface active sites involved in proton binding and release are haphazardly exposed. Thus there is much effort directed toward finding
alternative proton-conducting materials (Peled et al., 1998). Other solid electrolytes are 3-D crystal structures. These work by having many ionic site
vacancies: under the influence of an electric field an adjacent ion can hop into the vacancy, leaving a new vacancy behind. Thus in effect the vacancy moves,
analogous to the motion of a "hole" in a semiconductor. Obviously (and unfortunately), however, this hopping works best at high temperature, where the
thermal motion of the ions makes them easier to move. For example, one of the most practical solid electrolytes is presently doped ZrO2, the basis of so-called
"solid-oxide" fuel cells, but it is only effective >600°C (e.g., Rickert, 1982). The crystal fundamentally consists of close-packed O= ions, which include the
Zr cations in the interstices. Substitution of (e.g.) ~10% Y3+, instead of Zr4+, however, leaves some O= sites vacant to preserve charge balance. Oxygen anions
                                                                                                            high-temperature operation
can therefore migrate toward the anode. In this case, too, the oxygen anions are obviously the mobile species. Such
                limits potential applications, and as mentioned decreases the ultimate thermodynamic
obviously severely
efficiency substantially. However, a large number of voidbearing crystalline structures is known, such as the zeolites, open frameworks based on
corner-sharing SiO4 and AlO4 tetrahedra. Such "molecular sieve" materials, in which the crystal structure is traversed by molecular or supramolecular-scale
channels, may provide alternative solid electrolytes for cations, especially for small cations such as H+. Unfortunately, currently accessible structures are
impractical, as they have conductivities several orders of magnitude lower than alternative ionic conductors (e.g., Kelemen et al., 1989). Part of the problem,
however, is that the zeolites tested were polycrystalline aggregates consisting of tiny (~1 mm) unoriented crystals, so the bulk conduction properties
probably reflect a great deal of grain-boundary and surface effects. Hydration of the cations can also increase their effective size and thus decrease their mobility
significantly (Rees, 1978). Perhaps more promising are open frameworks formed by redox-active elements such as W. These are already known to take up ions,
including H+, in some cases. Reduction of framework ions draws in such small counterions to maintain charge balance. Such intercalation is the basis of lithium
batteries (section and electrochromism (section 2.2.6.), and it seems directly relevant to solid electrolytes. Zeolites cannot work in this way, because
                                                                           fabrication of solid electrolytes, such as
neither Si nor Al has oxidation states separated by a single electron. In any case, nanoscale
megascopic single crystals, is likely to be important for practical low-temperature fuel cells.

                                                                       74 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                     SOLID-STATE HYDROGEN SAFE


James Gartner, staff writer, ―Solid Hydrogen Seen as Safer‖, Wired, Mar. 15, 2007, p. http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/03/solid_hydrogen_.html

Researchers at the University of New Brunswick have developed a method for converting hydrogen gas into
a solid that can easily be converted back into a fuel on demand. The scientists are working with HSM Systems to
incorporate hydrogen into a powder that would be safer to store in a vehicle than liquid or gaseous hydrogen.
 Hydrogen is combined with other materials to make it inert, but that reduces its energy efficiency since most of the volume and weight will be in the form of non-
energy producing materials. The researchers say the first version will store six percent hydrogen by weight, and they hope to improve it to nine percent, so vehicles
                                                 The dream of fuel cell cars and a hydrogen highway won't be
would be carrying a lot weight that would be a drag on fuel efficiency.
realized until a safe way of storing hydrogen is developed that forever eliminates the inaccurate link to images of the Hindenburg.
While research continues to be done on building stronger tanks for storing hydrogen under pressure, much of the attention has gone towards developing metals that
can absorb and release hydrogen as needed. The most talked-about forms are metal hydrides or solid oxides, so this research is a new twist on the same idea.

                                                                      75 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                               NANOTECH GROWTH


Richard Appelbaum, Ex. Com. Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society @ UC Santa Barbara, Gary Gereffi, Dir. Ctr on Globalization, Governance &
Competitiveness, Rachel Parker, Grad Fellow @ Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society, & Ryan Ong, Research Associate @ Ctr. On Globalization,
OFF?‖, Paper prepared for SASE 2006 Conference ―Constituting Globalisation: Actors, Arenas, and Outcomes‖, July 2, 2006, p.

Governments of more than 80 countries, rich and poor, are investing in nanotechnology as a key to global
economic competitiveness. Global governmental spending has increased ten-fold in the past seven years,
reaching a total approaching $5 billion in public spending in 2005 - $8 billion if private research and development is included3
(Renn and Roco, 2006). Governmental support for nanotechnology is found not only in advanced industrial nations, but in the developing world as well – for
example, in China, Taiwan, and South Korea, which, like the United States, are seeking to coordinate nanotechnology at the national level (Roco 2003).4 China‘s
efforts to date include setting up training facilities for large numbers of scientists, establishing research centers, and promoting industrial applications, including
joint ventures. Impoverished countries such as Vietnam regard nanotechnology applications as central to their development strategies, and have hosted international
                                                      is already highly globalized in terms of research and
conferences on the topic (VNS 2004; China View 2003). Nanotechnology
development, technology transfer, product engineering and application, and manufacture.

                                                                       76 / 124
NDI 2008-09                            WIKE


                    77 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                                CHINA LEAPFROG


Richard Appelbaum, Ex. Com. Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society @ UC Santa Barbara, Gary Gereffi, Dir. Ctr on Globalization, Governance &
Competitiveness, Rachel Parker, Grad Fellow @ Ctr. for Nanotechnology in Society, & Ryan Ong, Research Associate @ Ctr. On Globalization,
OFF?‖, Paper prepared for SASE 2006 Conference ―Constituting Globalisation: Actors, Arenas, and Outcomes‖, July 2, 2006, p.

China is investing heavily in the next generation of technologies: it plans to train 50,000 engineers advanced
chip design over the next few years, by creating design training centers in universities in seven cities. Rather
than move slowly up the value chain – from simple OEM assembly to higher value-added manufacturing activities – China is making what may
prove to be its first successful great leap forward, from ―imitation to creation,‖ as one INSEAD working paper puts it (White
and Xie, 2004): The fundamental change is from firm and national strategies based on imitating technology developed elsewhere, to strategies based on creating
                                                                  is based not just on [Chinese firms‘] ability to
proprietary and competitively valuable resources and capabilities…. competitiveness
successfully adopt or imitate technologies and processes developed elsewhere, but on their ability to develop
firm-specific capabilities that lead to competitively important resources, including product and process
technology, brands and distribution networks. One recent NSF-funded study, conducted by Georgia Tech‘s Technology Policy and
Assessment Center, compared China, Japan, and the United States on various measures of technology standing over the ten-year period 1993-2003. The study
concluded that ―China has moved higher into the hierarchy of technology exporters… more than doubl[ing]
its score on ‗technological standing‘ – a key benchmark that gauges current global competitiveness‖ (Georgia
Tech Research News, 2003). China‘s overall ‗technological standing‘ was rapidly closing on both the United States
(whose score had changed little over the period) and Japan (whose score had declined). China scored especially well on four of the
measures used to construct the ‗technology standing‘ indicator: national orientation towards technology
development, socioeconomic infrastructural support (including education, capital mobility, and foreign investment), technological
infrastructure, and ability to manufacture technology products (Georgia Tech Research News, 2003). The ability of a developing
country to work both ends of the technology spectrum to its economic advantage is at least unusual, and arguably historically unprecedented. It has been made
possible in large part by the same changes in communications technology of the past quarter century that underlie other aspects of economic and cultural
globalization. Nanotechnology, itself inherently interdisciplinary and collaborative as a result of common interest across the sciences in scale, may be the first
scientific revolution to emerge fully globalized. Scientists and engineers, ideas and information, metrology and products – all flow across borders with
unprecedented ease. Unlike previous technology revolutions, which diffused globally from their origins in advanced industrial nations, the birth of nanotechnology
                         Chinese government hopes to make China a nanotechnology world leader,
is already highly distributed. And the
leapfrogging the more advanced industrial nations in the process.

                                                                     78 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                         DOMINANCE THREATENED


Ashlee Vance, staff writer, ―Ambitious China firms military and commercial R&D ties‖, The Register, Mar. 4, 2008, p.

China will try to copy the US in any way it can in the hopes of improving the country's technology might. The
Pentagon on Monday released a fresh assessment on the PRC's military muscle. Throughout the 66-page report, the US outlines various
techniques China employs and hopes to employ in order to boost its technology prowess. Those methods include a better
working relationship between the Chinese military and businesses, espionage and more research and development into cutting edge technology such as
microprocessors and nanotechnology. On one front, China appears set on mimicking the post-World War II path followed by the US around research and
development. The US government, for example, developed an enduring affinity for the scientists that helped it win World War II. That newfound respect for the
skills of scientists translated into tighter links between the military and researchers, as well as an increase in funding pushed out from the Defense Department to
universities and companies. Over the years, the exchange of technology between the military, universities and private sectors has resulted into major gains for the
US - some obvious examples being the klystron, microprocessors and the internet. According to the Pentagon, China too has          zeroed in on so-called
dual-use technology that caters to military and public use at the same time. The report cites President Hu Jintao promising to
"blaze a path of development with Chinese characteristics featuring military and civilian integration." China has already demonstrated impressive work in the
shipbuilding and defense electronics sectors, resulting from the shared needs of its military and commercial operations. And now the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) is benefiting from information technology work as well. "Information technology companies, including Huawei, Datang, and Zhongxing maintain close ties
to the PLA and collaborate on research and development," the report states. "Commercial off-the-shelf technologies, such as computer network switches and
routers, increasingly provide the PLA with state-of-the-art telecommunications equipment." Meanwhile, China's ability to advance microprocessor and aviation
technology has suffered due to a lack of commercial work in the silicon field and a reluctance to form partnerships with either multi-national corporations or
domestic firms in aviation, according to the report. Of course, when innovation fails and a lack of commercial aid persists, you can always turn to espionage. US
officials often present claims that numerous attacks on military and commercial networks originate in the PRC. "Officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI) have identified China as running an aggressive and wide-ranging effort aimed at acquiring advanced technologies from the United States," the report states.
"Similarly, officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have referred to China as the leading espionage threat to the United States." The US
suspects China of using espionage to make gains in the software, integrated circuit, computing, electronics, telecommunications and information security sectors in
an effort to shift the PLA "into an information-based, network-enabled force." And sometimes the PRC employs a nice mix of innovation, investment and
espionage to meet its goals. China also harvests spin-offs from foreign direct investment and joint ventures in the civilian sector, technical knowledge and expertise
of students returned from abroad, and state sponsored industrial espionage to increase the level of technologies available to support military research, development,
and acquisition. Beijing‘s long-term goal is to create a wholly indigenous defense industrial sector able to meet the needs of PLA modernization as well as to
compete as a top-tier producer in the global arms trade. China is already competitive in some areas, such as communications, with leading international defense
firms. Looking forward, the US expects the PRC to focus its research and development attention on five main areas: "material
design and preparation, manufacturing in extreme environmental conditions, aeronautic and astronautic mechanics, information technology development, and
nanotechnology research." As the report notes, China has shown an ability to transform from laggard to hero in
some of these areas in a very short amount of time. "China has gone from virtually no research or funding in
nanotechnologies and processes five years ago, to being a close second to the United States in total
government investment."

                                                                      79 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                        DOMINANCE THREATENED


Jacob Heller & Christine Peterson, President @ Foresight Institute, ―"U.S. Federal Nanotech R&D Funding‖, Foresight Nanotech Institute, 2005, p.

The United States federal government leads the world in nanotechnology research and development funding. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the
federal government‘s R&D program that coordinates multiagency efforts in nanotech science, allocates over $1 billion annually to 14 agencies. Since its inception
in 2000 it has been largely regarded a success. Most recently, the President‘s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found that the funding is
                                                                        United States is beginning to lose its lead in
"very well spent", and that "the program is well managed".1 However, some fear that the
nanotechnology research funding, and that the current structure of federal R&D is not optimally designed to
promote the most innovative output. To maintain international leadership in the field of nanotechnology and promote the discovery of beneficial
nanotechnology, the NNI will probably require more funding and a reevaluation of its structure. The NNI has already made valuable contributions to the
development of nanotechnology. With NNI funding, researchers have been working on gold nanoshells that can target the destruction of malignant cancer cells,
low-cost hybrid solar cells, quantum dots that can open the door to much faster computing, and nanoscale iron particles that can reduce the costs of cleaning up
contaminated groundwater.2 Due largely to this high level of funding, the United States leads the world in nanotech patents, startups, and papers
                                        United States is beginning to lose its lead in government-sponsored
published.3 However, more can and should be done. The
nanotech R&D relative to the rest of the world. When adjusted for purchasing-power-parity (a comparison of how
much a dollar can buy in different countries), non-US governments are spending more per-capita on nanotech research and development than the United States.
Using this scale, the United States spent $5.42 per capita in government funding for nanotech R&D in 2004, while South Korea spent $5.62, Japan, $6.30, and
Taiwan, $9.40.4 Other     countries are quickly catching up. China spends $611 million annually (after adjusting for purchasing-power-parity) on
nanotech research, nearly 40 percent of U.S. federal funding.5 Instead of expanding government spending on nanotech to meet
the challenge, funding increases for the NNI have not even kept pace with inflation. The proposed budget for FY 2006 was
actually lower than FY 2005 funding when adjusted for inflation;6 FY 2007 will likely have a similar decrease in funding. It has been argued that the private sector,
not government, should fund all nanotechnology research and development.7 However, even many libertarians — the group most skeptical of government
                            private firms are unlikely to engage in long-term basic research when those firms
involvement — take the position that
will be unable to reap the full benefits of their investment. This type of basic research may constitute a public
goods problem, in which market processes working alone may not function optimally.8 Foundation funding
can make a difference, but is generally focused on specific applications such as the nanoemulsion-based vaccine delivery
system recently funded by the Gates Foundation. Sustained expansion in federal R&D funding may be critical to the development of US nanotech-based industries.
The federal government can fund long-term and risky research that companies are unwilling and unable to
conduct; these types of research usually have the largest payoff for society in the long-run. Also, at current
budget levels, the federal government cannot fund many meritorious research efforts. The ratio of serious proposals to
funded projects is too high; for example, in 2004 the NSF received 48 proposals for funding nanotech research centers, but could only afford to finance six.9 Even
when researchers do receive federal funding, the amounts are usually inadequate to completely and fully research a subject.10

                                                                      80 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                               WIKE

                                                INVESTMENT SOLVES BRAIN DRAIN


Pete Engardio, staff writer, ―Can the US bring jobs back from China?‖, Business Week, June 19, 2008, p.

This would seem to be a good time for an American manufacturing renaissance. The economics of global
trade are starting to tilt back in favor of the U.S. to a degree unseen in a generation. Since 2002 the dollar has plunged by
30% against major world currencies and is falling against the yuan. Wages in China are rising 10% to 15% a year. And spiking oil prices are driving up shipping
rates. The cost of sending a 40-foot container from Shanghai to San Diego has soared by 150%, to $5,500, since 2000. If oil hits $200 a barrel, that could reach
$10,000, projects Toronto financial-services firm CIBC World Markets. But as the experience of Boston-Power and countless companies like it shows, the map of
                                             factories and supplier networks in many industries have withered in
global commerce can't be redrawn overnight. American
the era of globalization, so it will take lots of time and capital before the U.S. can become a big player again.
In electronics, for instance, there has been a mass migration of component makers to China in the past decade. Ditto for suppliers to Midwest heavy-equipment
makers and North Carolina's furniture industry. The bulk of goods made in China-clothing, toys, small appliances, and the like-probably won't be coming back,
because they require abundant cheap labor. If anything, their manufacture will go to other low-wage nations in Asia or Latin America. And in industries from
                                                                In areas where the U.S. is at the forefront of
machinery to motorbikes, China's productivity gains nearly offset rising wages andfuel prices.
innovation-renewable energy, nano materials, solid-state lighting-the U.S. must compete with Asian and
European nations willing to lavish entrepreneurs with start-up capital, cash grants, and cheap loans. Similar
help may be needed to persuade U.S. companies to build capacity.

                                                                     81 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                       WIKE

                                                          DOMINANCE THREATENED


Edward Welsch, reporter for Medill News Service, ―US needs big effort in nanotechnology‖, MarketWatch, June 29, 2005, p.

The United States is at risk of falling behind other countries in nanotechnology research, according to researchers
testifying Wednesday at a House subcommittee. Nanotechnology, which involves the manipulation of atoms and molecules to create new products and
processes, needs more funding and more scientists to keep up, the panelists said. Floyd Kvamme, co-chair of the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology Policy and a partner emeritus in venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, told the subcommittee that while
the United States is still the leader in nanotechnology research and development, "other countries are
aggressively chasing U.S. leadership." While the U.S. spends more than any other country - $3.3 billion out of the
$8.6 billion world total - it is exceeded by many Asian countries on a per capita basis, according to New York nanotech analysis firm
Lux Research Inc. Per capita investment in South Korea is $5.62; in Japan, $6.30; and in Taiwan, $9.40. The U.S. spends $5.42 per capita. Asian countries are also
piggy-backing on U.S. research by ignoring patent laws, said Matthew Nordan, vice president of research at Lux. Rep. Michael Sodrel, R-Ind., asked how the U.S.
can maintain any technological breakthroughs when other countries, such as China, show little respect for intellectual property laws. The panelists suggested
various means of getting other countries to play by the rules, from appealing to the World Trade Organization to blocking the sale of products of stolen U.S.
technology. Nordan told the lawmakers that protectionist methods alone would be ineffective. "It's a question of staying one step ahead," he said. "The
that the U.S. can maintain its dominance ... is to have an unrelenting, relentless flow of new ideas that take
time [to implement] and keep the U.S. three, four, five years ahead." The Brain Drain Problem A significant barrier to maintaining an
edge in innovation is the scientific brain drain to other countries, the panelists said. Nordan cited Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley's prediction that by 2010 90
percent of the world's physical scientists in 2010 will be from Asian countries and 50 percent will be working in Asian countries. Kvamme said that while many
scientists are trained at U.S. universities, fewer are choosing to stay in the United States after they get advanced degrees. The United States must find a way to
reward people for sticking with difficult scientific fields instead of pursuing more lucrative and easier paths, he said. More Funding, More Vision Nanotechnology
has helped to create synthetic bone replacement material that helps bones heal faster. It is also being used to create a substitute for the ordinary light bulb that uses
one-tenth the energy. And it is helping to create membranes that can remove contaminants in water. Those are a few applications of technologies that have the
potential to be used in fuel cells, video displays, computer chips, clothing and tools, as well as in agriculture, medicine, defense and engineering. However, many
of the gee-whiz applications of nanotechnology are a decade or more away, and getting funding for the concept stage of the science is harder than for developing a
marketable nanotech product. New venture capital funding has remained "relatively flat," with between 30 and 40 venture-backed nanotech startups per year, said
Sean Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance. Venture capital funding has actually declined 48 percent from $385 million in 2002 to $200
                                       "Since the private sector is not willing to take the risk, the government must
million in 2004, according to Lux Research.
bridge the gap," Murdock testified. Nordan compared research into nanotech to government-funded research into
information networks decades ago. No one knew then that that research would pay off many times over with
the Internet, he said. Nordan predicted that nanotechnology will affect nearly every type of manufactured
good over the next 10 years, and will be incorporated in 15 percent of the world's products, worth $2.6
trillion. Committee chairman Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., would review the panelists' testimony and determine whether there was a need for further legislation,
said spokesman Joseph Pouliot.

                                                                        82 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                WIKE

                                                 CHINESE NANOWEAPONS IMPACT


John Marlow, Nanotechnology Expert, Nanosecurity and the Future (if Any)" NanoNews Now Monthly Report, a publication of Nanotechnology Now, April
2004, p. http://www.johnrobertmarlow.com/sa__art--nanosecurity%20and%20the%20future%20if%20any.html

According to an October, 2003 article in Small Times magazine, China    currently holds third place among nations for the number
of nanotech patents issued. They also have, as Foresight's Christine Peterson notes, more centralized research control,
allowing them to swiftly dictate and fund any area determined to be a priority—a significant advantage not
possessed by western nations with a more diverse research structure. There have been some curious statements coming from
China, foremost among them the following, from a report cited by Gannett News Service: " Chinese military specialists urge the
development of 'magic weapons' that would allow an 'inferior to defeat a superior enemy.' .... The report quotes General
Pan Jungfeng as calling the United States 'the enemy' " Curious, indeed—particularly when coupled with (Arthur C.) Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A recent report prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission by Richard D.
Fisher, Jr. of the Center for Security Policy (New Developments in Russia-China Military Relations: A Report on the August 19-23 2003 Moscow Aerospace Salon
            an "increased Chinese propensity to invest in Russian military firms capable of providing
(MAKS)) notes
technologies better than that available to the Russian armed forces." The report goes on to state that "China is able to
acknowledge areas of Russian excellence over its own, and then employ the Russian military-technical complex to build new capabilities much faster than if it
relied on indigenous firms." Thus, "by employing Russian firms to build in some cases new generations of technology, China is also enabling Russia to market new
weapons which can pose possible threats to other U.S. interests while providing profits which these same Russian firms can use to remain competitive with U.S.
technology." It is easy to imagine such cooperation extending to nanotechnology—and nanoweaponry. No one has been more
vocal about Chinese nanotech involvement than Russian émigré Lev Navrozov, president of the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies and author of
several columns and a book dealing with what he calls the Chinese desire to preserve its present form of government by any means possible—including world
domination. As Navrozov explains it, "The national student movement, associated with Tiananmen Square, endangered the Chinese dictatorship more than any
group in Soviet Russia two years later. Yet the Soviet dictatorship fell. What a lesson for the Chinese dictators! We know authentic information about the
                                                                                                                            is clear
Tiananmen Square movement from Zhang Liang's publication "The Tiananmen Papers," a 514-page collection of Chinese government documents. It
that the dictators of China saw how absolutism was endangered in China and understood that the only way to
prevent future Tiananmens was to annihilate the source of subversion, viz., the West." Thus, according to Navrozov, Chinese
leaders view the West as threat to their own survival—and Chinese dreams of world domination will remain
dreams only so long as U.S. and other nuclear forces remain impervious to certain destruction. If an attack
against the West were launched now, China would be devastated by a massive counterattack employing land-, sea-,
and air-launched nuclear weapons. Because of this, says Navrozov, the will of Chinese leaders is being held hostage to the Cold War
stalemate known as MAD, or mutual-assured destruction. "To avoid the fate of Soviet leaders," says Navrozov, "the Chinese
dictators began in 1986 to develop post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields, and molecular nano super-weapons have
become the eighth field of Project 863. (Curiously, the Chinese government's official 863 Program homepage currently lists annual project reports for 1999, 2000,
and 2001—but nothing more recent.) "Post-nuclear superweapons, such as molecularnano superweapons—as strategically superior to nuclear
                                                                                                                       expected to solve the
weapons as firearms were to spears and bows, or as nuclear weapons are to conventional firearms," Navrozov continues, "—are
Chinese dictators' problem of annihilation of the West without Western nuclear retaliation. Molecular nano
superweapons are expected to be able to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation (such as submarines deep
underwater)." The Chinese strategy—again according to Navrozov—is simple: "China's government-controlled "capitalist
corporations" have been penetrating into the entrails of the Western economies, absorbing the latest science
and technology—or sometimes entire Western corporations, induced to operate in China on cheap local labor." Indeed, offshoring/outsourcing/visa-worker
replacement of U.S. white-collar information technology jobs is a major issue in both Silicon Valley and the United States as a whole—and many of these
                                                                               leaders hope to combine nanointelligence
vanishing American jobs are finding their way to China. Navrozov believes that Chinese
gained from Western corporations and perhaps government-funded labs with China's own, considerable
research efforts to gain a decisive nanoadvantage which can be used to intimidate or destroy all Western
powers combined. He points to a document announcing an "international symposium on molecular nanotechnology and self-assembly of metallo-

                                                                     83 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

nanosystems" sponsored by, among others, the People's Liberation Army and the National Defense Science and Engineering Committee.         "If the United
States developed molecular nano superweapons at least at the same time as China," says Navrozov, seeming to wax
hopeful for an instant, "peace would be ensured through a new mutual assured destruction—not with nuclear, but molecular
nanotech means of retaliation." His mood, however, soon turns gloomy: "But the U.S. progress on molecular nano weapons is virtually zero: the possibility
of molecular nano superweapons has been denied by the U.S. government-funded National Nanotechnology
Initiative, just as the "China threat" has become—for reasons of commerce—unmentionable in the United States in the
21st century. Why else would there be no official mention of efforts by the largest dictatorship in world history to develop molecular nano weapons?"
Understandably, Navrozov's view of the future is dim: "To predict the future, one must delve into the history of China, which was in some respects freer than the
West of the time of the Inquisition, for example, but in other respects was more ruthless than the West ever was, except in Germany under Nazism. Unless
electoral majority in the West, or at least in the United States, awakens to the Chinese threat—as it did to the
German threat in 1939—the West is doomed to a Chinese molecular nano-annihilation, or to colonization." Many of
Navrozov's views are summarized in A Glimpse Into China's Post-Nuclear Super-Weapons: Interview with Lev Navrozov.

                                                                     84 / 124
NDI 2008-09                     WIKE


                   85 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                                                GOVERNMENT KEY


Michael   Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Why don't we have a nanotechnology Apollo Program for clean energy?‖, Nanowek, Apr. 30, 2008, p.

It wasn't market forces that landed a man on the moon; and It wasn't market forces that led France to build a
nuclear energy infrastructure that now enables it to generate some 75% of its entire energy needs from nuclear power (just an
example of what energy policy can do; let's not get into a discussion here of nuclear energy, though). But somehow, the leading political and
industrial forces in the United States – together with China the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet – think that a task so
fundamental and massive as fighting global warming and environmental pollution should mostly be left 'to
the market'. Unfortunately, it‘s just a matter of economic reality that 'the market' will not invest in new
energy technologies on a large scale until existing ways of producing energy become more expensive than
producing alternative energies – which at the moment they aren't. As is the case with almost all emerging technologies,
government initially lends a helping hand before the technology becomes a viable commercial proposition and
the market takes over (remember how the Internet got created?). In the case of future clean energy technologies, it appears that this 'helping
hand' needs to be massive and swift. It's not so much that clean/green tech wouldn't develop over time on its own. But it's against the backdrop of
accelerating global warming that it becomes a top priority that requires massive public resources.

                                                                      86 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                                  GOVERNMENT KEY


Dr. Jens Greiser, Strategic Marketing Manager at FEI Co.; Dr. Michael Dr. Naughton, Professor of Physics at Boston College; Dr. Bart Riley,
Founder, VP, R&D, and CTO of A123 Systems; and Dr. B.J. Stanbery, CEO and Founder of HelioVolt Corp, ―Current and Future Nanotech Applications
for Energy & the Environment – A Roundtable Discussion‖, Nanotech Briefs, 2005, p. http://www.nanotechbriefs.com/auth/people/people1_1206.html

NB: What needs to be done in order for the public to adopt these technologies?
                                                                       you‘ve got to make it competitive on a first-cost basis.
Dr. Riley: I listened to what B.J. said earlier. He said, ―it‘s expensive!‖ I mean
People just don‘t value operating cost benefits as much, so it‘s got to be first-cost comparable; operating cost
is the up side -- plus you get the ―warm and fuzzies‖ for being green.
Dr. Greiser: What I see at this time is that governmental agencies sometimes see nano as a kind of infrastructure problem; i.e.,
you spend some money and then you have nano. It‘s like an award: you just spend the money, then you set up a research institute, and then you have the results,
which is obviously not the case. Nano       must be dedicated to problem solving or applied to achieve something, that‘s the
way to go -- a good mixture of both is needed. The other factor is with regard to the general awareness of the public. What‘s the incentive for a consumer to
use a certain roof that keeps the heat inside? What‘s the incentive when you build a house to do that? What‘s the incentive to use a certain kind of car? So the
government can of course spend a lot of money on infrastructure, but they also can spend a little on
incentives. In Europe, there‘s quite a lot going on in legislation and regulation; for example, we have to take bio-fuels into out regular fuels. So with the
consumer paying the high premium on bio-fuels, we will end up in a transition of fossil fuels versus bio-fuels. So the legislation in Europe is kicking in and getting
the commercialization going.
Dr. Naughton: To echo something Bart said earlier,    I think the consumer marketplace probably looks at costs before they look
at cost/benefit analysis. For example, these guys [A123 Systems] are making these fabulous batteries that last so much longer; however, I‘m guessing
they don‘t cost the same.
Dr. Riley: They‘re more expensive.
               first thing the consumer is going to say is, ―wow, that‘s X times more expensive,‖ without necessarily
Dr. Naughton: So the
calculating whether or not in the end it‘s better. It‘s a matter of getting the message out in a longer period of time, which is probably a big
challenge for you guys as well as creating the technology and getting into the marketplace.
Dr. Riley: Getting  into market is a challenge. Being a small start-up, it‘s a difficult thing to do.
Dr. Stanbery: I‘ve seen some fascinating historical studies on how long it actually takes to get a breakthrough in
the market, because once you recognize the science or the physics or the fundamentals, you still have to do
the engineering and you still have to figure out an appropriate application for the technology, which always
starts with a higher price that can afford to pay the bills while you ramp up manufacturing and reduce the
overall costs. It‘s a pretty generic paradigm. The historical studies I‘ve seen indicate that it takes twenty-five years to get any new technology into mass
adoption in the market, and it doesn‘t seem like that time-scale has changed very much over time.
Dr. Riley: Just to build on that, I worked in high-temperature superconnectivity and that‘s on a 20 to 25 year product schedule, and then another 50 years to have
meaningful infrastructure with superconducting transmission lines. It‘s a long road because of the technical challenges and the market contents. In
contrast, A123 published a paper in Nature Materials in 2002 that featured the benefits of our technology,
and now we‘re producing hundreds of tons per year of this nanomaterial and shipping product all over the
world. That took four years, which is very fast, and it‘s been an amazing ride.

                                                                        87 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                              WIKE

                                                               GOVERNMENT KEY


J. Clarence Davies, Senior Advisor, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies ―Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology‖, Woodrow Wilson Intentional Center
for Scholars, Jan. 13, 2006, p. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=165552

An important aspect of managing NT is to encourage its application to environmentally beneficial uses. Most
applications of NT are environmentally beneficial in that they reduce the amount of material necessary for a particular purpose. However, there are more
specific environmental benefits that NT may make possible. For example, NT materials already have been used to remove toxic materials from soil at contaminated
                                 initiatives to encourage environmentally beneficial NT also should be
sites (Oberdorster 2005, p.4). Government
used to encourage applications that benefit public health. In fact, failure to treat NT public health and
environmental applications equally would be morally and politically untenable. This section discusses four mechanisms that
can be used to encourage applying NT to environmental protection and public health: research, tax breaks, acquisition programs and regulatory advantages. While
                                                               most direct way for government to encourage beneficial NT
each of these is worth considering, each has significant problems. The
is for the government (usually federal, but possibly state or local) to conduct the research itself. Alternatively, the government can pay
for research, but let others do the actual work under contract. A third possibility—one in which the government has less control
over the research—is for the government to award research grants.


Alan   Gotcher, Ph.D. & President of Altair Nanotechnologies, Oral Testimony to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on Commerce, Science and
                    2006, p. http://www.altairnano.com/documents/AlanJGotchertestimonySenateCommerce.pdf
Transportation, June 14,

What is needed now from the federal government to assist the nano-industry in applying its potential to
alternative energy are two thrusts: continued funding to U.S. companies for basic and applied R&D,
1) Priority spending on nano-materials and system solutions to replace or decrease the use of internal
combustion engines and thus decrease U.S. dependence on oil, and
2) Increased funding for environmental, health and safety R&D, including a broad, government-funded
initiative aimed at establishing empirical data and models to predict and prioritize the EHS risks of
commercially-interesting nano-materials, including inducements for private-sector companies to engage in
this research initiative.

                                                                     88 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                             WIKE

                                                              R&D GOOD


Dr. Jens Greiser, Strategic Marketing Manager at FEI Co.; Dr. Michael Dr. Naughton, Professor of Physics at Boston College; Dr. Bart Riley,
Founder, VP, R&D, and CTO of A123 Systems; and Dr. B.J. Stanbery, CEO and Founder of HelioVolt Corp, ―Current and Future Nanotech Applications
for Energy & the Environment – A Roundtable Discussion‖, Nanotech Briefs, 2005, p. http://www.nanotechbriefs.com/auth/people/people1_1206.html

                                      tend to spend their research money on earlier stage research, and I
Another point is that, historically, governments
believe I have a very unconventional perspective on one of the fundamental motivations for industry to
spend money on R&D. I think they very often spend money on R&D to figure out what‘s important enough for
them to put pressure on the government to fund fundamental research in, so when it becomes ready to
commercialize, they‘ll have access to the funding.

                                                            89 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                        WIKE

                                                      SOLVENCY XTN - REGULATION


Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law @ U. Tennessee, ―Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy‖, Harvard Journal of
Law & Technology, Fall 2003, p. http://www.foresight.org/publications/whitepapers.html

 A more plausible alternative is a modest form of regulation coupled with robust civilian research — an
approach that has been applied successfully to biotechnology, or ―recombinant DNA‖ research, as it used to be called. Though
some have criticized the regulatory regime governing biotechnology as overly intrusive, it has
largely prevented misuse, maintained public confidence, and allowed science to proceed (yielding many new drugs and
treatments). In fact, it has also created an entirely new high-technology industry sector.74 As one might expect, this approach is
championed by those who believe the benefits of nanotechnology justify development in the field (e.g., scientists, advocates for the seriously ill, et cetera).


Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law @ U. Tennessee, ―Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy‖, Harvard Journal of
Law & Technology, Fall 2003, p. http://www.foresight.org/publications/whitepapers.html

                                                                          of the knowledge that it may or may not yield, the
The second ground for regulating research, however, is stronger. Regardless
government can certainly regulate research for safety.95 For nanotechnology, this chiefly means ensuring that
research with self-replicating systems (replicators) is conducted under conditions that ensure none will
escape the laboratory, and that if such escape did occur, the replicators would be unable to reproduce in the wild. Aside from
obvious containment measures, such safety regulations might specify, for ex- ample, that important parts of the
replicators‘ blueprints for reproduction depend on elements not found in the natural environment. Such an
approach, in fact, is consistent with the ―physical containment‖ and ―biological containment‖ approaches taken
to the regulation of biotechnology. 96


Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law @ U. Tennessee, ―Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy‖, Harvard Journal of
Law & Technology, Fall 2003, p. http://www.foresight.org/publications/whitepapers.html

As nanotechnology continues to develop, it is likely that the debate over regulation will also evolve.
Experience with biotechnology indicates that early concerns about safety are likely to be overblown and that
an effective regulatory regime can be based on consensus and self-regulation. Though there are likely to be some calls for a
complete ban on nanotechnology, such a strategy will not succeed. Its unworkability means that such calls will probably come from antitechnology groups who
command little political support. Similarly, efforts to limit nanotechnology to military applications alone are likely to face serious social, technical and political
                                                                                              will also be more responsible
hurdles, as knowledge diffuses and as the public seeks access to potentially life-saving technologies. However, there
calls for regulation. The conscientious commentators‘ concerns can be met through a regulatory approach
that will not stifle the development of nanotechnology. Let us hope that the political system will approach these questions with wisdom,
rather than arrogance.

                                                                        90 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE



Jacob Heller & Christine Peterson, President @ Foresight Institute, ―"U.S. Federal Nanotech R&D Funding‖, Foresight Nanotech Institute, 2005, p.

Besides the amount of funding, the structure and duration of most NNI funded research is problematic. Because NNI budget pressures have made the peer review
process more conservative and because most grants are given for only one year, many researchers essentially do the experiment before writing the grant to ensure
year-after-year funding. This necessarily constrains risk-taking and creativity, both of which are essential for large-breakthroughs in nanotech research. The federal
government should consider following Japan‘s example and fund research projects for durations as long as five years, or even more. A triennial review of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative issued by the National Research Council in 2006 also advocated changes to the research areas being covered. In addition to
more focus on environmental, health, and safety concerns, the NRC looked specifically at the field of molecular manufacturing (molecular machine systems),
                                                                                        There are also
recommending improved coordination between experimental and theoretical work in this highly promising area of nanotechnology.11
other ways to encourage nanotech research and innovation besides directly funding R&D efforts that the
federal government should consider. For example, the federal government could offer prizes for specific
innovations, or make commitments to purchase nanotechnological products if they are produced. More must be
done — in both the amount of funding and the way that nanotech research is financed — for US nanotech-based industries to stay apace with the rest of the world
and quickly grow to maturity.

                                                                      91 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                              WIKE

                                                      EXPAND EFRC FUNDING


Michael   Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Why don't we have a nanotechnology Apollo Program for clean energy?‖, Nanowek, Apr. 30, 2008, p.

Nanotechnologies will have a major role to play in almost all future clean energy applications and that's why
the scope – but not the scale – of the DOE's Energy Frontier Research Centers initiative seems such a good starting
point. Add three zeroes to the current funding and you have the beginning of a promising energy initiative.
There is no doubt that nanotechnologies could provide the solutions to our energy problems, not today, and not
tomorrow, but with a massive, coordinated and international effort a 10-20 year timeframe seems not unrealistic.
Today's various national nanotechnology programs fund their vast hodgepodge of research initiatives more
from a viewpoint of basic research (or, in the case of the U.S., military wish lists) than with a focus on commercial
implementation – in the process scattering funding resources by trying to cover each and every potential

                                                               92 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                               NANOTECH => ALTERNATIVE ENERGY


Dr. Jens Greiser, Strategic Marketing Manager at FEI Co.; Dr. Michael Dr. Naughton, Professor of Physics at Boston College; Dr. Bart Riley,
Founder, VP, R&D, and CTO of A123 Systems; and Dr. B.J. Stanbery, CEO and Founder of HelioVolt Corp, ―Current and Future Nanotech Applications
for Energy & the Environment – A Roundtable Discussion‖, Nanotech Briefs, 2005, p. http://www.nanotechbriefs.com/auth/people/people1_1206.html

NB: Fossil fuels account for nearly three-quarters of the world's energy consumption. How can nanotech change this dependency?
Dr. Naughton: I think the hope and expectation is that nanotech        can lead to better performance in whatever area you‘re looking at, which brings us back
to efficiency. Although we know that you can collect energy and there are respectable efficiencies out there as well as payback over a certain amount of time, I
don‘t have solar panels on my roof. Why? Because it costs too much and because it‘s not efficient. And we could relay that into a lot of other areas. We‘re        not
driving totally electric cars because the efficiency cost analysis is not marketable yet. So maybe it won‘t be only nanotech
that leads the way towards these better efficiencies, but there‘s a pretty good expectation, from what‘s known and what‘s out there now, that a large part of
it can be done by nanotech.
Dr. Stanbery: If you look at the fundamentals of the solar resource, it is inherently a distributed resource, which is
used to generate electricity or to create fuels on a meaningful scale compared to the scale of our
consumption, which literally requires – irrespective of efficiency considerations – thousands of square kilometers. There are
really only three things that humanity does on that scale. Those are agriculture and, hence, I think bio-fuels are a
very effective way to capture that resource for fuel applications; transportation systems – we cover thousands of square
kilometers with roads and buildings; and about 60% of all electricity that‘s generated globally is used to power buildings,
and yet that resource (the roofs of those buildings) can be utilized to generate almost exactly the same fraction – 60%
of all our electricity dealing with current conversion efficiencies. So the inescapable fact of utilizing solar
energy is that you have to cover a lot of area, and if you want to do that without consuming a lot of
resources, particularly for electrical-power generation, you have to use something very thin. I think
nanotechnology will enable the future of allowing us to use very thin coatings of materials directly on
Dr. Riley: The solar area is going crazy right now with Sharp leading the way on an international basis and making lots of investments and more capacities. So it
looks like they‘re hitting the elbow in the cost-volume curve, which is great. The other one that‘s kind of blown me away is wind. A guy from General Electric
who‘s invested in A123, told me that they‘re going to do over four billion in sales this year for wind systems – that‘s billions! On   a dollars-per-watt-
hour basis, it‘s the least expensive form of energy generation. The batteries that we‘re using, which utilize nanotech to give them
long life and better power, make a great mate with wind generation for local storage and turbines. So they‘ve made an investment in us as a result, and this is a
direct way in which nanotech is pointing the way toward the whole energy efficiency thing.
Dr. Stanbery: I think that your perception that Sharp‘s investment and other investments being made in the expanded capacity for photovoltaics is in fact not
actually based on a cost inflection in manufacturing costs. It‘s based on a widespread increase in the cost of alternatives. In point of fact, the manufacturing cost has
stagnated relatively in terms of what‘s actually available in the market because it‘s all based on silicon technology at this point, which is very far down its learning
curve and it‘s now frankly limited mostly by the costs. Fifty percent of the cost of the converters is now just in silicon, which is why eliminating that high
consumption of that raw material and replacing it with a thin coating of materials that is nanostructured and nanoengineered is a very attractive means of attacking
the fundamental cost element that limits the cost of the existing technology.
                                                                    agricultural point of view, developing the green fuels
Dr. Greiser: I would like to comment once again on bio-fuels. From an
requires catalysts, which is a huge topic for nanotechnology as related to energy. Catalyst development used
to be something like an imperial discovery. It could, however, become more like a design versus a discovery
approach – the design of the catalyst gives more, better, or easier efficiency in getting from the crops or plants
to the fuel. So I think that‘s also an important point for science.

                                                                       93 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                               NANOTECH => ALTERNATIVE ENERGY


Andrew Berger, MBA Finance & BS Geology @ Colorado, U., Triplepundit.com, ―Nanotechnology and Meeting Our Energy Needs‖, Dec. 18, 2007, p.

Longer term, some of nanotechnology‘s most exciting and valuable contributions  in the energy sector are likely to be seen in
the renewable, alternative energy sector, however, Halwar asserts ―Today, the renewables industry represents the fastest-
growing energy market in the world: global wind generation has grown threefold over the past five years and the production of photovoltaic solar
cells is more than six times greater than in 2000 - and nanoscale science and engineering are playing an increasingly critical role,‖ he states in a media
release. Nanoscale        processes, materials and devices are already part of the process through which silicon-based
photovoltaic solar cells – which make up some 95 percent of the market today - produce electricity. They are also the focus of
research and development of a new generation of solar power technology that includes ultra-thin amorphous
silicon, organic and inorganic solar cells derived from nanocrystals that can convert sunlight into electricity
at a fraction of the cost of silicon solar cells. These solar nanocells are so small and pliable that they can be painted on to physical structures
so that the walls of a building may one day soon be able to generate electricity. Nanotechnology is also moving hydrogen fuel cell
research and development forward. It holds the potential to put hydrogen storage directly in the fuel cell
directly using nanoengineered carbon, zeolites or stacked clays. In addition, ―nanoengineered electrodes in the form of cathodes and anodes are currently being
manufactured and incorporated in solid oxide and polymer electrode-based fuel cells that provide higher efficiency and performance,‖ Halwar noted.
Nanoengineering processes also afford the benefit of reducing the amount of platinum-- used as a catalyst—by using platinum nanoparticles to increase surface area
                                                                                  are opportunities to apply
and lower volume, as well as improving the functioning and durability of fuel cells‘ membranes. Similarly, there
nanoscale materials and processes in wind power generation by improving the efficiency of wind turbines.
―Nanotechnology impacts the wind industry in general, by improving turbine performance and reliability to
allow for longer lifetime, less fatigue failure, and lower costs of generation,‖ according to Haldar. The use of nanocomposite
materials that provide lighter and substantially stronger turbine blades may be the most promising contribution nanotechnology will make in the development of a
new generation of wind turbines. Nanoscale materials are making an impact in other parts of wind power systems. New lubricants that contain nanoparticles serve
as mini ball-bearings that help reduce friction from the rotation of turbines, which decreases wear-and-tear throughout its life cycle, he points out. New
nanocoatings meanwhile can improve the de-icing and self-cleaning properties of the turbines and hence increase efficiency by virtually eliminating the
accumulation of dirt and ice.

                                                                       94 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                              NANOTECH => ALTERNATIVE ENERGY


Paul   Holister, consultant specializing in the commercial and societal impacts of new technologies, ―Nanotechnology and the Future of Renewable Energy‖,
RenewableEnergyWorld.com, Feb. 26, 2007, p. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=47553

Nanotechnology operates at such a fundamental level that there is very little of a technological nature that it
will not impact. Thus its effects on energy generation, transmission, storage and consumption are numerous
and diverse. Some will be incremental and some quite possibly revolutionary. Rather than trying to sketch the whole landscape, a few examples will
hopefully illustrate the variety. At the mundane end of the scale you have anti-fouling paints for wave or tidal power,
or materials with a higher tolerance for radiation in nuclear reactors. I did say mundane. In wind power, the
potentially enormous improvements in strength-to-weight ratio of composite materials used in blades could
pay back surprisingly well because the relationship of blade length to efficiency is not linear but follows a
power law -- though there is much argument about how this pans out in the real world. At the other extreme of nanotech impact, you have solar
energy. We are children in this area, and the playground is built on the nanoscale. Almost any development is going to involve nanotech --
an intriguing recent exception being the use of lenses to focus light on old-fashioned silicon photovoltaics, thus demanding less of this expensive material. But
what makes for a revolution in energy generation? Two things: availability and economics.      The fact that solar energy is so bountiful -- enough
hits the Earth in a minute to meet our global requirements for at least a week -- makes it potentially revolutionary; it's just the cost of
capturing that energy that has been standing in the way. Reduce that enough, or increase the cost of the
alternatives, and you have a winning scenario. One other energy source could, I believe, be equally revolutionary. Not fusion, which,
despite the dreams of my youth, I sadly have to relegate to a distant future, not that the ongoing experiments aren't worthwhile. But geothermal energy,
boring as hot rocks and steam may sound, has revolutionary potential for the same reason as solar -- an essentially
unlimited supply of energy untapped only because of economics. The nanotech connection is not as direct
here as with solar -- you have tougher materials to cut drilling costs or thermoelectric tunneling for efficient
low-grade heat conversion -- but it only takes the right conjunction of developments and geothermal power
stations will be springing up, or down, all over the place. I've only considered here principal power generation, but this should already
give some sense of the breadth and potential scale of impact. I'd be surprised to find any reader of this unaware of the excitement surrounding developments in
fuel cell and battery technology. Nanotechnology figures almost without exception in the cutting edge of
both. So how do nanotechnology-based solutions apply to environmental concerns and energy security issues?

                                                                      95 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                              NANOTECH => ALTERNATIVE ENERGY


NanotechWire.com, ―Nanotechnology Deemed Best Long-Term Energy Alternative‖, May 10, 2005, p. http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2394

Breakthroughs in nanotechnology could open up the possibility of moving beyond the United States‘s
current alternatives for energy supply by introducing technologies that are more efficient, inexpensive, and
environmentally sound, according to a new science policy study by Rice University. The report, based on input from 50 leading U.S. scientists
who gathered at Rice in May 2003, found that key contributions can be made in energy security and supply through
fundamental research on nanoscience solutions to energy technologies. The group of experts concluded that a
major nanoscience and energy research program should be aimed at long-term breakthrough possibilities in
cleaner sources of energy, particularly solar energy. Such a program also should provide vital science backup
to current technologies in the short term, including technologies for storing and transmitting electricity. The
study findings were announced as Congress and the Bush administration began another round of efforts to pass national energy legislation. ―The 2003 energy bill
effort was an amalgamation of giveaways to special-interest groups,‖ says Amy Myers Jaffe, the Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies at the James A.
                                                                                                              is needed is a
Baker III Institute for Public Policy and associate director of the Rice Energy Program and the Shell Center for Sustainability. ―What
more focused debate that puts regional or parochial short-term interests aside and emphasizes our long-term
national interests. The outlook is dire. We need real solutions.‖ The participating scientists agreed that nanotechnology
could revolutionize electricity grid technology by providing transmission lines built from carbon nanotubes
that could conduct electricity across great distances without loss. A breakthrough in electricity transmission
technology would facilitate not only distributed electricity but also render commercially viable the
transmission of electricity from distant sources of energy, such as solar and wind collector farms located in desert
geography or closed-loop clean coal FutureGen sequestration power plants built near geologic formations. Improvements in electricity transmission also would
permit the transportation of electricity by wire from power stations built near stranded natural gas reserves in remote regions. Howard Schmidt, executive director
of the Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory at Rice, believes that development of carbon nanotube wire is possible within five years given adequate research and
                   ―Energy is unique in its ability to give us answers to most other problems,‖ says Nobel laureate
development funding.
               ―And it is uniquely something we can do something about.‖ Smalley, University Professor and the Gene and
Richard Smalley.
Norman Hackerman Professor of Chemistry and professor of physics, notes that the Bush administration‘s initiatives on energy
technology are laudable, but the level of financial commitment is not large enough to achieve needed

                                                                      96 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                               NANOTECH => ALTERNATIVE ENERGY


Michael   Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Why don't we have a nanotechnology Apollo Program for clean energy?‖, Nanowek, Apr. 30, 2008, p.

Direct conversion of solar energy to electricity and chemical fuels will benefit from powerful new methods
of nanoscale fabrication, characterization, and simulation – using physical, chemical and biological tools that were not available as few
as five years ago – to create new opportunities for understanding and manipulating the molecular and electronic
pathways of solar energy conversion. A lot of research in this area today is on carbon nanotubes (Carbon nanotubes
can double the efficiency of photoelectrochemical solar cells) and quantum dots (Catching a rainbow - quantum dot nanotechnology brightens the
prospects for solar energy). Understanding of how biological feedstocks are converted into portable fuels – biological
systems are the proof-of-concept for what can be physically achieved by nanotechnology (Nanotechnology's role in
next generation biofuel production). The way in which energy, entropy, and information are manipulated within the
nanosystems of life provide lessons on how to develop similarly sophisticated energy technologies. This entails
research in light harvesting, exciton transfer, charge separation, transfer of reductant to carbon dioxide as well as carbon fixation, storage and conversion.
Catalysis – the essential technology for accelerating and directing chemical transformation – is key to realizing environmentally friendly,
efficient and economical processes for the conversion of fossil and renewable or alternative energy
feedstocks. The grand challenge at the core of all of these areas is to achieve detailed mechanistic
understanding of catalytic dynamics for complex heavy molecular mixtures, bio-derived species, and solid
nanostructures and interfaces (Nanotechnology optimizes catalyst systems). In a smaller way, nanotechnology materials and
processes will generally benefit most areas of renewable energy production. For instance, the use of
nanocomposite materials that provide lighter and substantially stronger turbine blades may be the most
promising short-term contribution nanotechnology will make in next generation wind turbines. Improving
turbine performance and reliability will allow for longer lifetime, less fatigue failure, and thus lower costs of
energy generation.

                                                                       97 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                 WIKE

                                             NANOTECH => ALTERNATIVE ENERGY


Michael   Berger, Editor @ Nanowerk, ―Why don't we have a nanotechnology Apollo Program for clean energy?‖, Nanowek, Apr. 30, 2008, p.

Transforming energy utilization and transmission – at the heart of nanoscale behavior, one often finds emergent
phenomena, in which a complex outcome emerges from the correlated interactions of many simple constituents. By understanding the
fundamental rules of correlations and emergence and then by learning how to control them, we could
produce, for example, an entirely new generation of energy utilization and transmission processes, such as in
phase change materials for thermal energy conversion, strong light-matter interaction and collective charge
behavior for light emission nearing theoretical efficiency, and radically different combustion chemistry of
alternative fuels. Understanding the emergent behavior of materials and chemical reactivity at the nanoscale
offers remarkable opportunities in a broad arena of applications including solid-state lighting, electrical
generators, clean and efficient combustion of 21st century transportation fuels, catalytic processes for
efficient production and utilization of chemical fuels, and superconductivity for resistance-less electricity
transmission. In 2001, twenty-two percent of electricity used in the U.S., equivalent to eight percent of the nation‘s total energy, was used for artificial light.
Solid state lighting (SSL) modalities present an opportunity to achieve tremendous advances in energy
efficiency (Nanocomposite solid-state lighting). By discovering and controlling the materials and nanostructure properties that mediate the competing
conversion of electrons to light and heat, nanotechnology will address the challenge of converting every injected electron
into useful photons. The anticipated results are ultra-high-efficiency light-emitting materials and
nanostructures, and a deep scientific understanding of how light interacts with matter, with broad impact on
science and technology areas beyond SSL. There are other, more indirect – and only incremental – impacts that nanotechnology could have on energy
usage. For instance, by using high-performance nanocomposite materials, cars and airplanes could be made much
lighter, thereby improving fuel efficiencies. But the major improvement in the transportation sector will come
once nanotechnology-enabled fuel cells have become commercially viable alternatives to the internal
combustion engine.

                                                                     98 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                      VENTURE CAPITALISTS GOOD


John Hoffman, staff writer, ―Venture capital pours money into nanotechnology investments‖, International Chemical Industry Suppliers, Jan. 14, 2008, p.

Venture capital (VC) investments in nanotechnology reached $699m (€477m) in 2006, a 9% increase over 2005 funding of $640m, and cumulative venture
capital in the field has reached $3.2bn, according to New York-based market research firm Lux Research.
"This rate of investment growth is significantly lower than the 2005 and 2004 increases of 46% and 21%,
respectively," the consultancy says in a new report. "This indicates that VCs may be taking a bit of a breather as they wait
for the current round of investments to play out, but that investment in nanotechnology by venture capitalists continues to grow."
The average VC deal in nanotechnology was worth $10.6m in 2006, 8% higher than an average value of $9.8m in 2005. The size of later-stage deals is increasing
as mature companies get closer to exit, Lux says. This rise in deal values drove the overall gain in VC funding. The total number of deals stayed constant - 65 in
2005 and 66 in 2006.
In 2006, 25 companies received their first VC investment, including nanostructured solar cell developer Stion, optoelectronics manufacturer SiOnyx, and molecular
memory developer Crocus Technology - the same number of companies that received their first VC investment in 2005.
          size of those initial investments fell by 33%, indicating that venture capitalists are placing smaller,
However, the
more cautious bets. "Money is highly concentrated in a few firms," Lux says. "Three companies closed deals with record-high
values in 2006: Nanosolar and NeoPhotonics brought in $75m each, while Nanosphere picked up a solid $57m. Together, these three companies - 5% of those
receiving funding in 2006 - account for 30% of the year's investment."
Eric Levenson, president and CEO of high-tech consultancy MP Systems, of Los Altos, California, US, cautions                that nanotechnology is too
broad to generalize, and investors need to focus on specific areas.
"Asking what are the main investment opportunities in nanotechnology and what areas are likely to grow
over the next few years is very similar to asking what are the opportunities for investing in the delivery of
goods and services," he warns. "The scope of the question dilutes the value of any answer."
Levenson sees nanotechnology as an umbrella term for an infrastructure of new concepts, such as self-assembly and bottom-up manufacturing, as well as new
materials like carbon nanotubes and quantum dots, and enhanced manufacturing capabilities, including the manipulation of biological processes and small groups
of molecules.
To identify opportunities for investing, companies should examine traditional markets and ask what unfilled needs might be addressed by nanotechnology, he
advises. The best way of identifying opportunities for nanotechnology, he says, "seems to be to first step back from the technology question and ask what markets
have large, unfilled needs."
"It is a classic mistake to take the reverse approach and search through the list of nanotechnology concepts, materials and capabilities for new 'killer' applications.
Not everything that can be made should be made," he says. "Rather, the well-learned rule still holds: look for a market need and apply the appropriate technology,
whether that be nano or conventional technology."
Levenson expects health care and life sciences to be large markets for nanotechnology. The aging population of the US and other industrialized nations, coupled
with rising population and standards of living in the developing world, should present significant opportunities for new products, services and investments.
"What makes this market so unusually promising today is the intersection between its very large size, the rise of nanotechnology, and the revolutionary advances in
our understanding of biology and biochemistry over the last 30 years," he notes. "New nanotechnology concepts, materials and capabilities, combined with our new
understanding of biology and biochemistry, is a potent alignment and will certainly be applied to meet an almost unending list of health care and life science market
Energy is another potentially large market for nanotechnology because of its size, the world's increasing
hunger for energy, and higher environmental standards.
"Any technology that can be applied to the needs of this market is likely to be well rewarded, regardless of its name," Levenson says. "If nanotechnology
can be used to satisfy the market needs for energy production, transmission and storage, our world will
change in unpredictable ways. The opportunity in this market is so dramatic, even risky nanotechnology
investments may well be worth pursuing."

                                                                       99 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                  VENTURE CAPITALISTS GOOD


AtharOsama, PhD public policy from the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School for Public Policy, ―Washington Goes to Sand Hill Road: The Federal
Government‘s Forays into the Venture Capital Industry‖, Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies, Jan. 2008, p.

This approach has traditionally been favored for obvious reasons. Primarily, it merges the capabilities and characteristics of the
government with those of the private sector. The government characteristics of this approach allows for
access to ―deep pockets‖ of funding, a willingness to correct perceived market failures, and the ability to take
certain kinds of long-term risks. The private sector characteristics bring a set of in-depth technical and
managerial know-how, financial incentives to perform, and existence of a mature risk capital market that
could be ―primed‖ to support new innovations. The result is that relatively small inducements and infusions
of capital can be used to serve an unrepresented market segment, such as small businesses within a state, a
certain under-funded sector, or unmet mission needs of various government agencies.

                                                               100 / 124
NDI 2008-09                             WIKE

               ***A/T CASE ATTACKS***

                      101 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                               WIKE

                                                 A/T NANOTECH TAKES TOO LONG


Dr. Jens Greiser, Strategic Marketing Manager at FEI Co.; Dr. Michael Dr. Naughton, Professor of Physics at Boston College; Dr. Bart Riley,
Founder, VP, R&D, and CTO of A123 Systems; and Dr. B.J. Stanbery, CEO and Founder of HelioVolt Corp, ―Current and Future Nanotech Applications
for Energy & the Environment – A Roundtable Discussion‖, Nanotech Briefs, 2005, p. http://www.nanotechbriefs.com/auth/people/people1_1206.html

As of today, what I see is that nano is ready to be used. Specifically, it already exists in the materials sector, because of
the results of science and what we‘ve accomplished in the last 20 to 25 years. But it‘s not like we‘re looking
for a problem to sell our nanotechnologies; we‘re simply using nanotechnology to solve the problems.
Nanoengineering is more about solving the problems, versus basic nanoscience, which is important to get new disruptive ideas that can later address the
engineering problems.

                                                                   102 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                   A/T GOVERNMENT FUNDING BAD


Manufacturing & Technology News, ―Dearth of nanotechnology venture capital funding prompts industry to turn to government‖, June 18,
2004, p. http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/computer-electronic-product-manufacturing/170201-1.html

A majority of manufacturing industry executives believe the federal government has a major role to play in
funding pre-commercial research in nano-manufacturing technologies, according to a survey conducted by the National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences. (NCMS). "The industry is very broad and fragmented and many applications are not proven yet," says Manish
Mehta, vice president of research at NCMS. In a survey conducted on behalf of the National Science Foundation, NCMS found that little private
sector seed money is being directed into nanotechnology. Only 2 percent of all venture capital has been
invested in nano specific technologies over the past two years, The industry is still too premature to attract
funding for large-scale commercialization of products. "That means the government role of bringing this
onto the radar screens of VCs and institutional investors is significant," says Mehta. According to the survey, most people in
industry believe that small companies will commercialize nanotechnologies in many industrial sectors. They won't be able to get far until there is market-pull from
OEMs for affordable, superior technologies that lower costs and improve the reliability of existing products. "The burden is on suppliers to prove how good this
technology can be through improved parts, components and functionality," said Mehta. "And that is where collaborations are needed." The fledgling
nanotechnology industry has not yet started addressing environmental concerns, due to the fact that most
companies have not established manufacturing processes. Most of the specialty nano-processing equipment
resides at universities and companies have not gone through an investment cycle for production. Industry does not
believe the public has reason to fear health effects of nanotechnology--at least not yet. Two-thirds of the companies responding to the NCMS survey say they will
have opportunities to commercialize nanotechnologies within the next five years. Twenty-eight percent said they are already marketing products with
nanotechnologies embedded in them; and 15 percent said they expect to commercialize within one year--"a significant finding," says Mehta. "They see
                                                                                         There is also concern that
nanotechnology as a major source for new growth in the technology field in the next three to five years."
nanotechnology research must be conducted in the United States, and applied to products being made in the
U.S. "It has to be attempted here," says Mehta. "The knowledge base has to reside here."

                                                                    103 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                        A/T NANOTECH UNFEASIBLE


JohnHemminger, Chair of the Basic Energy Science Advisory Committee, Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination,
US Department of Energy, Dec. 20, 2007, p. http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GC_rpt.pdf

We find ourselves at the convergence of two nanoscience revolutions. Design and fabrication of devices on
the nanometer scale, often based on solidstate electronic materials, is becoming possible. This is probably the first thing that comes to
mind when one thinks of nanoscience. However, as we delve ever deeper into the world of biology, we find that biology is also based on
a vast array of nanoscale mechanisms. Living systems are built of the same fundamental elements of matter and follow the same laws of physics
as all inorganic and human engineered entities. Biological energy and chemical transduction, communication, adaptation, self-repair (see Chapter 3), and
reproduction are all emergent properties (Chapter 4) of the laws of physics that have evolved within the biological world. If     we look closely at
biological nano-machines, such as molecular motors, they appear to resemble their human engineered counterparts.
However, the way they work is often dramatically different. In most cases, the biological mechanisms hinge on physical
behaviors existing only at the nanoscale. At the present time, many functionalities of living systems exceed those of most comparable human
engineered technologies by so great a margin that, if it were not for the a priori existence of life, they might be inconceivable. But living systems do exist; life
thus provides the proof-of-concept for what can physically be achieved with nanotechnology. Biological
nanotechnology further offers a great wealth of design concepts and strategies to achieve functionalities that would be of great utility for numerous technological
                             the ease with which living systems transform and store energy or their abilities
goals. To take two examples, consider
to perform self-repair and adaptation. The ways in which energy, entropy, and information are
manipulated within living nanosystems provide us with lessons on what humans must learn to do in order to
develop similarly sophisticated technologies.

                                                                     104 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                   WIKE

                                                                    A/T GREY GOO


Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, ―Grey Goo is a Small Issue‖, Dec. 14, 2003, p. http://www.crnano.org/BD-Goo.htm
The earliest proposals for molecular manufacturing technologies echoed biological systems. Huge numbers of tiny robots called ―assemblers‖ would self-replicate,
then work together to build large products, much like termites building a termite mound. Such systems appeared to run the risk of going out of control, perhaps
even ―eating‖ large portions of the biosphere. Eric Drexler   warned in 1986, ―We cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with
replicating assemblers.‖ Since then, however, Drexler and others have developed models for making safer and
more efficient machine-like systems that resemble an assembly line in a factory more than anything
biological. These mechanical designs were described in detail in Drexler's 1992 seminal reference work, Nanosystems, which does not even mention free-
floating autonomous assemblers. Replicating assemblers will not be used for manufacturing. Factory designs using
integrated nanotechnology will be much more efficient at building products, and a personal nanofactory is
nothing like a grey goo nanobot. A stationary tabletop factory using only preprocessed chemicals would be
both safer and easier to build. Like a drill press or a lathe, such a system could not run wild. Systems like this are the basis for
responsible molecular manufacturing proposals. To evaluate Eric Drexler's technical ideas on the basis of grey goo is to miss the far more
important policy issues created by general-purpose nanoscale manufacturing. A grey goo robot would face a much harder task than
merely replicating itself. It would also have to survive in the environment, move around, and convert what it
finds into raw materials and power. This would require sophisticated chemistry. None of these functions
would be part of a molecular manufacturing system. A grey goo robot would also require a relatively large
computer to store and process the full blueprint of such a complex device. A nanobot or nanomachine missing any part of this
functionality could not function as grey goo. Development and use of molecular manufacturing will create nothing like
grey goo, so it poses no risk of producing grey goo by accident at any point. However, goo type systems do not appear to be
ruled out by the laws of physics, and we can't ignore the possibility that someone could deliberately combine all the requirements listed above. Drexler's 1986
statement can therefore be updated: We   cannot afford criminally irresponsible misuse of powerful technologies. Having
lived with the threat of nuclear weapons for half a century, we already know that. Grey goo eventually may become a
concern requiring special policy. However, goo would be extremely difficult to design and build, and its replication would be
inefficient. Worse and more imminent dangers may come from non-replicating nano-weaponry. Since there are
numerous greater risks from molecular manufacturing that may happen almost immediately after the technology is developed, grey goo should not be a
primary concern. Focusing on grey goo allows more urgent technology and security issues to remain

                                                                    105 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                              WIKE

                                                           A/T GREY GOO


Chris Phoenix, Dir. Of Research @ CRN, & Eric Drexler, Nanotechnology engineer & theorist, ―Safe Exponential Manufacturing", Nanotechnology,
Aug 2004, p. http://www.crnano.org/BD-Goo.htm

Nanotechnology-based fabrication can be thoroughly non-biological and inherently safe: such systems need have no
ability to move about, use natural resources, or undergo incremental mutation. Moreover, self-replication is unnecessary: the development
and use of highly productive systems of nanomachinery (nanofactories) need not involve the construction of
autonomous self-replicating nanomachines. Accordingly, the construction of anything resembling a dangerous self-replicating nanomachine
can and should be prohibited. Although advanced nanotechnologies could (with great difficulty and little incentive) be used to build
such devices, other concerns present greater problems. Since weapon systems will be both easier to build and
more likely to draw investment, the potential for dangerous systems is best considered in the context of
military competition and arms control.

                                                           106 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                              WIKE

                                                  A/T NANOTECH => EXTINCTION


Derek Thompson, staff writer, ―Tiny Tech‖, Toronto Star, July 20, 2000, p. L/N.

As is often the case with recent technological advances, hypeprecedes reality. But if the hype surrounding nanotechnology is to
be believed, it will either alleviate human suffering or lead to the eventual extinction or subjugation of the
human race. ``The notions animating nanotechnology were very quickly picked up by sci-fi writers and
futurist gurus who, in some respects, write fiction positioned within the context of the real world,'' says Martin Moskovits, a
professor of chemistry at the University of Toronto. To date much of the hype has been two-fold and polemic - namely, the
utopian versus dystopian models.

                                                                107 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                               A/T INFRASTRUCTURE


Carlo Butalid, Executive Director of a Philippine Solidarity Group in Tilburg, The Netherlands, ―Solar Energy at Grid Parity: Projected Effects and
Implications for Policy‖, Apr. 2, 2008, p. http://www.a2zstart.com/solar/gridparity01.html

Government subsidies for PV will still be needed.    Before grid-parity, subsidies were needed to encourage people and utilities
to install PV. After the achievement of grid-parity, subsidies will still be needed, but for other purposes.
 First, subsidies may be needed for supportive infrastructure, and to facilitate the adoption of PV. For example, soft
loans, bank guarantees or grants may be given to utilities so that they would be able to quickly set up solar energy projects. The cost to transport solar
electricity from other countries, in terms of laying cables etc may also need to be subsidized. Then, there is a need to
ensure that the installed capacity of smaller-scale PV projects is able to grow in the midst of the mad rush by large-scale projects for limited PV resources.
Distributed solar electricity production would distribute the beneficial effects of PV to households and
building owners; and would also help to unburden the electricity grid. Governments themselves could ensure a sufficient supply
of solar panels etc for retail use, by either requiring companies to devote a minimum amount of their sales for small-scale applications, or by buying up sufficient
capacity for distribution to the public. In order to further encourage small-scale solar energy use, the government may need to provide loans to homeowners, or
                                                                The spread of technological innovations needs to be
subsidize the cost of auxiliary equipment e.g. inverters and batteries.
facilitated. With the PV boom, will come the question of how we can facilitate the rapid spread of PV technology, while still respecting intellectual property
rights. This is a potentially acute question in terms of the need of technology transfer among nations; particularly between developed countries, and the poorer
countries. Perhaps it would become necessary to establish an international license agreement or body to regulate using patents across borders, or even compulsory
licensing clauses, for ―climate change related innovations‖. With such clauses, countries could utilize patented innovations that are either not available, or available
only at prohibitive prices, without direct transactions with the patent-holder. The country issuing such a compulsory license will pay the patent-holder a reasonable
royalty for the technology used, and will not resell this to other countries. Such an international mechanism for technology transfer would help to stimulate the
rapid spread of PV (and other) technology internationally.

                                                                      108 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                                   A/T ACCIDENTS


John Marlow, Nanotechnology Expert, ―Interview with John Robert Marlow on the Superswarm Option‖ Nanotechnology Now, Feb.                 2004, p.

A nanoevent is an accidental or deliberate release of nonlimited, omnivorous nanites-meaning self-
replicating, free-roving nanites with both molecular disassembly and assembly capabilities and without a
meaningful limitation on the speed of replication or the number of replications. Basically a little nano-robot capable of
tearing apart anything in its environment and using the pieces to make copies of itself, with no speed limit or stop sign. I suppose we could modify that to include
heedless nanites with more specific appetites-ones that devour only people, for instance. Such a nanoevent could happen in any one of several ways. It could occur
                                                                                                   the vast number of the
as the result of an accident-a defectively-assembled nanite or nanite program which doesn't know when to stop. Given
things likely to be created, some of them are going to contain errors. Most of those errors will be harmless, but
not all. Even so, the likelihood of nanites employed for peaceful purposes accidentally turning out a microscopic menace is
pretty slim. Probably.

                                                                   109 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                    WIKE

                                                             JOY INDICTS


Derek Thompson, staff writer, ―Tiny Tech‖, Toronto Star, July 20, 2000, p. L/N.

                  dystopian model posits that nanotechnology has the potential to end or, at the very least,
On the other hand, the
subjugate the human race to the level of domestic animal. Whether it's Bill Joy's recent rant in Wired magazine that
technology runs ``a risk of substantial damage in the physical world,'' the threat of intelligent, self-replicating
nanobots taking over the world, or a technocratic elite that may evolve and tinker with our DNA in order to
create a better social environment, such arguments are generally viewed as alarmist.

                                                           110 / 124
NDI 2008-09                              WIKE

               ***A/T DISADVANTAGES***

                       111 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                                     A/T OIL DISADS


Carlo Butalid, Executive Director of a Philippine Solidarity Group in Tilburg, The Netherlands, ―Solar Energy at Grid Parity: Projected Effects and
Implications for Policy‖, Apr. 2, 2008, p. http://www.a2zstart.com/solar/gridparity01.html

Fossil-fuels use will continue to increase, and prices will continue to rise. One, perhaps astonishing, result of arriving at grid-parity is that the
amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels will not decrease, but that it will continue to rise. Going further,
we can even say that the additional demand for fossil-fuels will be a direct result of achieving grid-parity for
solar energy. It would not be the only or even the main reason for the fossil-fuel price to rise, but it will contribute to this rise. At present (i.e. early 2008),
PV cells need to produce electricity for about two years before it recovers the amount of energy needed to produce it in the first place (this is referred to as the
―energy payback time‖). Now, the global total installed capacity of PV doubles every two years. This is quite a fast pace, even if we take into consideration that the
total installed PV capacity is now only about 0.05% (or 1/20000) of the total global electricity production. At the present rate, PV cells are just paying for
themselves, in terms of electricity use – the electricity needed to produce PV generating capacity is equal to the electricity that PVs actually generate. Now, if
grid-parity is achieved, the rate of growth of PV generating capacity will certainly grow faster than double
every two years. We could expect rates of 100% yearly growth or even higher. If the energy payback time
for PV does not improve significantly, the electricity needed to produce PV capacity will grow faster than
what PV produces. The result of this is that fossil-fuel electricity generation will have to increase in order to
fill the gap. We need to also factor in the fact that hydroelectric, wind and geothermal plants could provide a portion of the additional energy needed. In so
much as this would be the case, we also need to factor in the energy payback time for these other sources of renewable energy. After doing this, the overall energy
payback time would most likely remain to be around two years. Since the achievement of grid-parity will not lessen the overall demand for electricity from fossil-
                                    result of this will be that the overall demand for fossil- fuels for electricity
fuels, and may even increase this demand; the
production will increase. Add to this the fact that fossil-fuel supply may even be decreasing during this
period, the result is that the price of fossil-fuels would keep increasing. This will cause a strange chain
reaction: the faster the setting up of PV capacity, the higher the demand on fossil-fuel resources, resulting in
a higher price for fossil-fuels, further increasing the demand for new PV capacity, and so on…

                                                                     112 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                                     A/T OIL DISADS


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

When extracting from a subsurface natural energy source such as an oil or geothermal reservoir, the details of the
subsurface structure are obviously of paramount importance. Subsurface information, however, is also
extraordinarily difficult to get, particularly in the detail required. Nanotechnology has obvious applications
here. The extraordinary decrease in the cost of computing over the last few decades has already had a significant effect: the cost of domestic production since
1984 has dropped from $14 to $4/bbl, largely through information technologies (Paul, 2001). Most of this involves the processing and manipulation
of seismic data to picture subsurface structure, and this trend is another that will only accelerate
as information manipulation continues to become cheaper. Another embryonic trend is cheap distributed
sensors based on microtechnology, such as downhole thermometry, from fiber-optic cables, and autonomous
micro-flowmeters, which are "throwaways" that can be disseminated in the subsurface (Paul, 2001). This trend
will also accelerate as MNT comes on line.


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

Probably the least glamorous but most important application of nanotechnology to fossil fuel recovery in the
near term lies in "information intensive" extraction. This is particularly the case in "enhanced recovery,"
which involves techniques to mobilize the oil that would otherwise remain in the ground. (Conventional recovery
typically leaves some twothirds of the oil in the ground (e.g., Montgomery, 1997, p. 305)). For example, one form of "tertiary recovery" involves injecting steam
into the field to mobilize the oil. In one case (Paul, 2001), monitoring reservoir temperatures with downhole fiber-optic thermometers while tracking the flow of oil
and steam with ultra-miniaturized flow sensors inserted into the stream led to substantial (~20%) savings. Less injected steam was required, and it could be targeted
                                              will provide incremental improvements of techniques already
more effectively. This is an example of how nanotechnology
carried out in embryonic form with microtechnology. Bioprocessing may also be mentioned as an example
of using natural molecular machinery to carry out distributed processing. Biotechnological approaches have been under
investigation for tertiary oil recovery (e.g., Yen, 1990), and are likely to be both much cheaper and far less disruptive environmentally. Indeed, bacterial strains
capable of metabolizing kerogen have recently been reported (Petsch et al., 2001). Such organisms, or the enzyme systems derived from them, may be able to
                                                                        could also provide considerably
carry out low-temperature cracking of kerogen or of the long-chain aliphatics in tar and asphalt. These
cleaner and less energy intensive approaches to processing of oil shale and tar sands.

                                                                     113 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                         WIKE

                                                                 A/T OIL DISADS


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

The obvious improvement here is to release their energy in fuel cells rather than via combustion. As noted,
however, fuel cells that can use hydrocarbons are in their infancy (section, and are currently much too short-
lived for practical applications. Near-term fuel cell applications in vehicles rely on "reforming" the
hydrocarbons to extract only the hydrogen, which obviously increases complexity and decreases
efficiency. As with any fuel cell, a practical hydrocarbon cell will involve structuring at molecular scales, and its
structure may even be more intricate to deal with the more complex fuel. Moreover, even when robust fuel cells
are developed there remains the issue of fabricating them cheaply enough to be competitive.

                                                                 114 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                A/T NUCLEAR POWER GOOD DISADS


Stephen Gillett, Ph.D. Dept. of Geological Sciences @ U. Nevada, ―Nanotechnology: Clean Energy and Resources for the Future‖, White Paper for the
Foresight Institute, Oct. 2002, p. http://www.foresight.org/impact/whitepaper_illos_rev3.pdf

The result of nuclear fission is a mishmash of fission products, the lighter nuclei formed by the fission of the U atoms, mixed
together with a set of heavier U and actinide isotopes formed by absorption of stray neutrons. The fission products tend to be strongly b-active because they are
                                                                                         fair amount (~1% 235U, as well as ~5% Pu
neutron-rich. The actinides are a- active and typically long-lived on a human timescale (as with 239Pu). A
generated in situ; USDOE-EIA, 2000) of unreacted fuel also remains, but it is unusable because of competitive absorption
of neutrons by the other nuclides. Obviously, it would be attractive to separate the components of nuclear waste,
for fuel recovery and also to recover potentially valuable radionuclides. However, separating—"reprocessing"—
nuclear waste is both difficult and hazardous. Indeed, such complex mixtures are difficult to deal with
even when not strongly radioactive. The procedures involve dissolution in strong acid and then separation via a long and complicated sequence of
steps using precipitation, ion exchange, solvent extraction, and so on, with the additional difficulty that all reagents and materials used themselves become
contaminated with radioactive material. Separation from such solutions could alternatively be carried out molecularly, by
systems like those described in section 3.3. Indeed, besides the "uranophiles" described above, effort has been directed toward finding actinide-specific binding
agents, although the focus of these studies has been therapeutic applications (e.g., Raymond et al., 1984; Kappel et al., 1985). This is a more difficult problem,
                                                        will have to be robust and ultimately probably self-repairing.
however, because of radiation damage to the nanomechanisms. They
If such systems can be developed, they will make the reprocessing of nuclear waste considerably more
practical. Indeed, possibly each reactor installation could reprocess its own waste.

                                                                     115 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                                      A/T MALTHUS

Eric Drexler,, Fellow @ Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, 1986

                                                          all else were equal, more people would mean greater
For example, as cell repair machines extend life, they will increase population. If
crowding, pollution, and scarcity - but all else will not be equal: the very advances in automated engineering
and nanotechnology that will bring cell repair machines will also help us heal the Earth, protect it, and live
more lightly upon it. We will be able to produce our necessities and luxuries without polluting our air, land,
or water. We will be able to get resources and make things without scarring the landscape with mines or
cluttering it with factories. With efficient assemblers making durable products, we will produce things of
greater value with less waste. More people will be able to live on Earth, yet do less harm to it - or to one
another, if we somehow manage to use our new abilities for good ends.

                                                                    116 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                      WIKE

                                                                   A/T WAR IMPACTS


Tom McCarthy, Professor and Department Head of Polymer Science and Engineering Coprincipal Investigator for CUMIRP,                     2003, p.

                                        manufacturing is that it will remove some of the causes of war, and
One of the highest hopes one can have for molecular
contribute to a generally safer and more stable global environment. On the surface, there is cause to believe it will
make the world safer, as there is a wide variety of conflicts that will be eased or even eliminated entirely by
an advanced breed of this technology. Conflicts come in many different forms, but it is possible to narrow them down to a few general types.
Some conflicts are the result of simple misunderstandings. Those misunderstandings may be misinterpreted military activity or accidentally threatening actions
(such as the accidental firing of a gun at a stand-off), or they may be a result of a fundamental inability of different cultures to communicate well. This kind of
conflict is generally resolvable, given the proper effort and time. At the other end of the spectrum, many conflicts are a matter of pure, unreasoning hostility
between groups. These conflicts may be based on religious or ethnic differences, or they may be built on a tradition of hostility, the ancient origins of which are no
longer clear. These conflicts are often without possible resolution, save for the complete elimination of one of the groups. (The Arab-Israeli conflict may be an
example of this unresolvable, interminable conflict, as may the ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia.) We should not hope that any new technology will have the
                                                                                              are some conflicts that may be amenable to
ability to resolve differences that are the result of human decisions or errors. However, there
technological resolution. One of the most common contributing factors to war among states is access to
resources. There is a wide variety of resources that are important to states; natural resources, such as land, gold and oil, have a long history of being something
states felt to be worth fighting over. There is also historical precedence for new technologies causing a decline in the value of some resources, so there is reason to
think it is possible to happen again. History is littered with examples of wars fought over resources. Wars were fought between
European countries over the vast stores of gold and other treasures that were thought to exist in the New World. In our own century, Japan drew the United States
into the Second World War when she attacked that country out of fear that a slow strangulation by lack of oil and other resources would happen otherwise. (3)
Millions were killed in a brutal war that was in part started over the issue of access to resources, and it was not to be the last time. Tens of thousands more would be
                                                                                     More wars over resources loom,
killed in the Gulf War of 1991, which was fought at least partially to defend the industrial states' access to oil.
most notably in the South China Sea, where a small group of islands known as the Spatleys sits atop a
potentially vast cache of oil and other valuable resources. 5 states claim sovereignty over this region, including China, which has
approximately 3 million men in uniform. The Republic of China on Taiwan, which has had hostile relations with China since her government was forced off the
                                                                                                                      prognosis for a
mainland by the Communist revolution of 1949, also claims parts of the disputed area, as do Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The
peaceful resolution of these conflicting claims is not promising. The stakes are high, and Asian states have
been arming themselves steadily during the last decade. MNT may help to alleviate, and perhaps entirely
resolve, the issue of access to certain materials. Petroleum, for example, may go the way of whale oil in the early 20th Century, "eclipsed"
by a new source of power (in this case, solar). MNT will not revive the solar power of the 1970's, with massive collectors that take up acre upon acre of desert
space, nor will it require the ugly water-heaters that clutter so many rooftops today. Rather, by increasing the efficiency of solar energy collection while
simultaneously lowering the power requirements of manufacturing, MNT             may make solar power an unobtrusive, sufficient source of
energy for both home and industrial use, thus creating a viable, even desirable alternative to fossil fuels. There is also the possibility that
for some tasks, molecular manufacturing processes will produce energy, rather than consume it. (4) Should such a
situation become reality, the implications for reduced interstate conflict are significant. Solar radiation is readily accessible at some
level to every state on the planet, and it is hard to conceive of a practical way that any state could restrict the access of another to it. Viable solar power
could lead to energy independence for all, and that would leave the states of the world with one fewer vital
interest to defend from each other, and thus one fewer reason to wage wars. There are other resource areas
where MNT might help contribute to a reduction in conflict between states. One of those is food. An example of the
isolated, low intensity conflict over food that is becoming more common today occured in1995, when Canada and Spain clashed over Spanish fisherman trolling
                               fish populations dwindle due to overfishing, we should expect an increase in
for fish off the coast of Canada. As
aggressive fishing practices and a concomitant rise in conflict regarding sovereignty over fishing grounds.
MNT, however, may allow the inexpensive generation of all the fish the human race can consume, without a man-
hour spent fishing. Sovereignty over prime fishing waters would become a non-issue. This apparently trivial example is important
because it illustrates that MNT may help alleviate conflict over material resources that are non-exclusive (that is, resources that can be consumed by many at the
same time, such as food, water and mass-produced goods. An example of an exclusive resource would be the French Riviera; there is only one, and only France has

                                                                       117 / 124
NDI 2008-09                             WIKE

               ***A/T COUNTERPLANS***

                      118 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                  WIKE

                                                A/T EXCLUDE PRIVATE SECTOR PIC


AtharOsama, PhD public policy from the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School for Public Policy, ―Washington Goes to Sand Hill Road: The Federal
Government‘s Forays into the Venture Capital Industry‖, Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies, Jan. 2008, p.

Government has long been a promoter and financier of high-risk scientific and technological research, not
only as a key sponsor of research (from blue-sky basic research to applied research to development in the nation‘s public sector labs and
universities) but also as an initiator of or a major contributor to special programs designed to help commercialize
the results of scientific and technological research and to solve particular problems. These interventions are
generally justified on the basis of the presence of a market failure (in other words, the lack of markets to provide enough capital
because of the high risks associated with these ventures) or asymmetry of information (in other words, the inability of various actors to evaluate the
opportunity and the risks involved). In the management-of-innovation realm, a growing literature deals with the famous
―valley(s) of death‖ between an idea and a commercialized product. The matter becomes more complex if one of the stakeholders
(either the producer of the idea or technology or the final consumer) is the government as it introduces further complications often associated with government
failures1 and workings of bureaucratic organizations.2

                                                                    119 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                WIKE

                                                   A/T BAN NANOTECHNOLOGY CP


Mike Trender, Ex. Dir. Of CRN, & Chris Phoenix, Dir. Of Research @ CRN, ―Overview of CRN‘s Current Findings‖, Center for Responsible
Nanotechnology, Apr. 16, 2007, p. http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm

                                                                                                        patchwork of
Molecular nanotechnology manufacturing creates several severe risks, and each risk tempts a simple and extreme solution. However, a
extreme solutions will be both destructive and ineffective. For example, Bill Joy and others have proposed halting
nanotechnology research entirely. This would not actually work; instead, it would relocate the research to less
responsible venues. The risks might be delayed by a few years, but would be far worse when they appeared
because the technology would be even less controllable. To take another example, economic upheaval might be prevented by strict
commercial licensing of all uses of the technology. This has two problems. First, digital protection schemes for commercial products have often proved quite easy
              the technology is so restricted that it cannot disrupt existing economic systems, continuing
to crack. Second, if
poverty will kill millions of people each year, fueling backlash, social unrest, espionage, and independent
development. Each risk must be reduced by some means that does not exacerbate others. This will not be easy, and will
require creative and sensitive solutions.

                                                                   120 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                                     WIKE

                                                     A/T BAN NANOTECHNOLOGY CP


Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law @ U. Tennessee, ―Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy‖, Harvard Journal of
Law & Technology, Fall 2003, p. http://www.foresight.org/publications/whitepapers.html

The relinquishment approach was originally taken by nanotechnology pioneer K. Eric Drexler, whose first reaction when considering the implications of
nanotechnology was guarded silence, for fear that it could potentially lead to great dangers.48 Drexler, however, soon recognized    that if he could
think of such an idea, others could as well. (Indeed, Drexler later discovered that the basic principles of nanotechnology had been anticipated
by Richard Feynman decades earlier.)49 Thus, Drexler concluded that the only responsible approach was to guide the
inevitable development of nanotechnology in constructive directions.50 The basic ideas of nanotechnology are now in general
circulation. A ban on nanotechnology could thus only be accomplished by banning research and development, rather than discussion. To have any chance
of success, such a ban would have to be comprehensive and draconian. However, even then it would face at least four
insuperable problems: definition, concealment, bureaucracy, and perfection. The first problem would be in formulating an exact
definition of nanotechnology. At present, researchers in search of funding have tended to define
―nanotechnology‖ rather broadly, including such things as molecular electronics and even high-resolution
photolithography. Nanotechnology generally consists of the mechanical manipulation of atoms and molecules at a nanometer scale, but the term
as generally used in nanotechnology circles has become more specified, and usually includes only particular methods of manipulation done with particular goals in
mind. Yet, a nanotechnology-prohibition regime that banned only the construction of, for example, assembler devices, would exempt from regulation huge amounts
                                                               resulting prohibition regime would merely drive the final
of research that could be readily translatable into such devices. The
stages of nanotechnology work underground. On the other hand, a broader regime of nanotechnology
regulation would encompass everything from high-precision chip manufacturing to many aspects of
biotechnology, creating enormous barriers to progress across a wide range of technical fields. While Luddites might view such side
effects as beneficial, rather than detrimental, society as a whole is unlikely to agree. A second problem with a
prohibitionist approach is the ease with which nanotechnology research can proceed using
inconspicuous tools in concealable locations. In fact, the current tools-of-choice for nanotechnology research are computers, as well as
Scanning Tunneling Microscopes and Atomic Force Microscopes, which are inexpensive and are often homemade within laboratories doing the research.52 Thus,
there are no large fuel-enrichment facilities (as with nuclear weapons research), no unusual chemical precursors or feedstocks (as with chemical weapons), and not
                                                                                                                  items will
even any odd organisms or nutrients (as with biotechnology research) for investigators to discover in searching for rogue labs. Such signature
naturally appear once nanotechnology research and development advances sufficiently. However, by that time it
would be too late for a prohibitionist approach to have any credibility. At present, and for some time, a nanotechnology
research program could easily be concealed within a wide range of electronic or biotechnology-related projects, with no apparent giveaways. In the absence of
giveaway signature technologies, the only way in which a prohibitionist approach is likely to succeed is if it (1) covers a broad range of potentially
nanotechnology-related fields, and (2) subjects work in those areas to in-depth surveillance and regulation. Such efforts, however, are unlikely to be well-
received. A third difficulty is that, at the very least, a prohibition regime is likely to create sizable bureaucratic demands
               of any research that borders on the prohibited. The resulting bureaucratization of research and development
for pre-approval
will likely slow technical progress substantially. Nonetheless, given the concealable nature of nanotechnology, as described above, it would be largely
ineffective in preventing illicit research. The biggest problem with a prohibitionist approach, however, is that it must be both universal and perfect to be any good.
Obviously, a prohibitionist approach that successfully prevents all nanotechnology research will prevent all harms that result from such research. However, a
prohibitionist approach that prevents only 99.999% of nanotechnology research, while allowing a few
underground projects sponsored by rogue states to slip through its net, would likely do just as much harm
with no corresponding benefits. Indeed, it would only make things worse, because those rogue states would then have a monopoly on a powerful
technology, while the civilized world would lack the wherewithal to deploy countermeasures.53 Calls for a moratorium on nanotechnology research face
similar problems. Such calls for voluntary relinquishment are mostly attention- getting devices (as even their proponents admit54), and are unlikely to promote the
regulation of the technology. It is conceivable that a moratorium on some specific aspects of nanotechnology that raise particular questions might be appropriate at
                                                                 this point a research moratorium would more likely
some time in the future — as it was with early biotechnology research55 — but at
keep us in the dark than keep us safe. The prohibitionist approach is unlikely to carry the day. The drawbacks are too great, the advantages too
few, and the difficulties too involved.56

                                                                     121 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                         WIKE

                                                   A/T MILITARY RESEARCH CP


Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law @ U. Tennessee, ―Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy‖, Harvard Journal of
Law & Technology, Fall 2003, p. http://www.foresight.org/publications/whitepapers.html

Also, there    is the risk that military nanotechnologies, by their very nature, will be more dangerous than civilian
nanotechnologies, since civilian technologies tend to be more robust and founded on a much deeper
experience base than military technologies.71 A civilian nanotechnology sphere will allow many bugs to be
worked out in the open, and permit more safety oversight than a classified military program. Thus,
classification of all nanotechnology research is likely to make military nanotechnology both more dangerous
and less reliable than would otherwise be the case. Military monopolization of nanotechnology also poses political risk.
Nanotechnology is likely to have dramatic nonmilitary applications, ranging from enhanced computing power to a cure for
cancer and old age. A military monopoly on nanotechnology would either cause society at large to forego those
benefits, or — perhaps worse — place those benefits under the control of Pentagon bureaucrats. Given that the ―military-
industrial complex‖ already wields significant power via purchasing and pork,72 do we want it to be able to
offer political supporters access to secret age-reversing treatments or disease cures? Though such prospects might
sound like the plot to a bestselling techno-thriller, a military monopoly on nanotechnology might make them a reality or, at the least, give rise to fears
and rumors that might prove equally destructive to democracy.

                                                                122 / 124
NDI 2008-09                        WIKE

               ***A/T KRITIKS***

                    123 / 124
NDI 2008-09                                                                                                                                         WIKE

                                         A/T NEOLIBERALISM / CAPITALISM BAD


Brad Spurgeon, staff writer, ―Nanotechnology Firms Start Small in Building Big Future‖, International Herald Tribune, January 29,   2001, p. L/N.

Mr. Colbert of Carbon Nanotechnologies said he fears such      visions are ''holding hostage the near-term potential for
nanotechnology to this far-flung dream of self-replicating assemblers.'' ''This is part of a little science fiction
cult almost,'' said Norman Spinrad, a science fiction writer. ''The dreams that they have will end capitalism, if it ever
happens. You can't have a capitalist economy when anybody can have anything they want for nothing.''

                                                               124 / 124

To top