1AC

Contention 1: Warming
Every method and model indicates fast anthropogenic warming and
continuation will risk extinction
GSA 2013
(The Geological Society of America, Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013,
citing dozens of peer-reviewed publications, Climate Change: Rationale,
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm, Accessed: 6/25/14) //AMM
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the
amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.8
C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage
in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than
a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives including ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments,
boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface
temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period
during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a
warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of
satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric
signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a
warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde
measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent
warming of Earths surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.
The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder
intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems.
Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes
in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the
atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the
sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles
and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate
has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of
increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved
understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change. Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of
the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earths tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly
changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Nio episodes have
warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation of the recent trend
have similarly failed. As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the
principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global
temperature. Although the 3rd (2001) IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since
1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations
(Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by
satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong
warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008). Greenhouse gases remain as
the major explanation for the warming. Observations and climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this
warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor
since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
is now ~30% higher than peak levels that have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5
times higher. About half of Earths warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes.
This clear-sky response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming results from the net effect of feedbacks in
the climate system: a large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback from snow and ice albedo; a negative feedback from
aerosols, and still uncertain,feedbacks from clouds. The vertical structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is
consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas fingerprint simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in isolation, the
greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but negative feedback from
aerosols and possibly clouds has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic
forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of gas increases in recent decades. These advances in scientific understanding of recent
warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow predicted trajectories, by 2100 atmospheric CO2
concentrations will reach two to four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of 2 C to 4.5 C compared to 1850. This range of changes in
greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes
involve risk to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less
snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal
water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and
stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7)
severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the
composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice
(still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause
substantial future sea-level rise, affecting densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmland and dislocating large populations. Because large,
abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as
ice sheets become vulnerable to large greenhouse-gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 1020% of the anthropogenic
CO2 pulse could stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other
species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years.

OTEC key to eliminate hurricanes and solve global warming by sequestering
carbon and decreasing use of fossil fuels
Dunn and Dhanak et al, Professors of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering @
Florida Atlantic University, 97
(Stanley and Manhar, also Patrick Takahashi- Director Emeritus @ Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
and Michelle Teng- Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering @ University of Hawaii,
Artificial Upwelling for Environmental Enhancement, Club Des Argonautes Newsletter, Vol 8, No. 4,
Winter, http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/otec/vol/vol8-4-1.htm Accessed 7/12/14)
Relative to fossil or nuclear energy, renewable technologies are mostly friendly to the
environment. However, very few sustainable systems actually improve the environs. Perhaps
some benefit can come from growing more trees for biomass production, but eventually much
of this feedstock is utilized, and certainly after several decades or centuries, most trees die,
replacing every bit of the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Notwithstanding many of
the previous evils wrought by colonialism, colonization of the open ocean does not clash with
cultures, and might well be a respectable option that can someday bring about increased
economic productivity and an enhanced environment. With the end of the Cold War, interest in
colonizing space has significantly diminished. The next true frontier, the ocean around us,
holds immense promise and is the next stage for development by humanity. Through much of
the tropical ocean-not owned by any country-nutrient-rich fluids are available a few hundred
meters below the surface. At depths of 1000 meters in the tropical belt, the available
temperature differential provides a mechanism-called ocean thermal energy conversion, or
OTEC-to move this cold, rich, pathogen-free fluid to the surface. Should it proven to be
economically attractive to build large floating platforms to tap the combined resources of
sunlight, deep ocean water, and seabed resources, the result could be a cornucopia of
integrated products, covering the spectrum of seafood, biofuels, clean chemicals, hydrogen,
biopharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, strategic metals, and fresh water(Takahashi, 1994). An
open-ocean artificial upwelled system, however, shows promise for both providing revenues
and, possibly, positively impacting the environment. Properly managed, the high-nutrient deep
waters can induce growth in the photic zone, on balance, although possibly with the need to
add iron, uptaking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Much of the CO2 formed will sink to
the bottom of the ocean, where much of it will remain trapped for a long, long period. The
carbonate cycle slowly transforms the gas back into the atmosphere, but those bound in silicate
compounds remain in place for many millennia(Berner and Lasaga, 1989). These same marine
systems, which would for good reason be placed at the equatorial belt, might also cool the
surface of those ocean regions responsible for generating typhoons and hurricanes(Takahashi,
1996). All the hurricanes which visit the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and eastern coastline of the
United States form just off Africa, while those that cause havoc in Hawaii come from a relatively
small area off the Mexican Coast, although the particularly disastrous Iniki, it is believed, might
have had African origins. If the temperature of the ocean surface can be kept below 26.8C,
these storms do not form. A team from Florida Atlantic University and the University of Hawaii
has been discussing the prospects for preventing hurricanes since 1992 when Andrew
devastated Florida, resulting in $30 billion in damages, and Iniki hit Hawaii( $2 billion),. A second
team involving the University of Hawaii and various partners has been looking at global climate
change remediation for at least as long. Induced Upwelled Systems in the Open Ocean A grazing
ocean thermal energy conversion(OTEC) plantship of several hundred megawatts will produce a
cold-water plume that can be engineered to remain in the photic zone so that the surface over
several square miles will be cooled. Through a 1000-megawatt OTEC system would flow 1.7
billion cubic meters per day of both warm surface and cold deep waters. The equivalent
nitrogen could result in 2 billion dry tons of kelp per year(Takahashi et al., 1993). Several
hundred of these energy pods can reduce the temperature of thousands of square miles. Each
plantship, of course, would be a revenue generator, ranging from:
industrial plantforms refining alumina, processing seabed ores, and converting biomass feedstock into green chemicals and biofuels;
ocean ranches for next-generation fisheries and marine biomass plantations;
casino-resort-marine entertainment complexes in partnership with Disney-at-Sea-type theme parks;
marine utilities(powerplants, waste treatment facilities, and the like);
military peace-keeping stations; to
marine cities.
Location of these applications on very large floating structures(VLFS) in the open ocean would be beneficial in numerous
ways(Takahashi and Ertekin, 1996), including:
displacement of air, land, and water pollution away from populated municipalities;

utilization of the oceans as part of the total system package for waste re-use, for example, smaller amounts of power-plant effluents
can be combined with marine biological growth needs, while massive disposal of carbon dioxide from
a coal power-plant can be accommodated into the deep ocean through the use of pipes(Masutani 1997); and
freedom to operate beyond territorial waters, potentially resulting in the formation on VLFS platforms of new nations.
Clearly, these systems would be located in the equatorial belt to obtain maximum temperature differential, and most definitely,
planning must this time be smarter than in the past to insure for development in harmony with the natural environment. However,
with artificially upwelled systems, the possibility of actually improving the environment also becomes an intriguing prospect. Society
and the Environment There is an unfortunate tendency for individuals and institutions to treat the symptom and not the root cause.
Part of this trait is because it is necessary to fight the brush fire, and decision-making systems can understand the need to provide
resources to accomplish this task. Not too long ago, for example, the United States government spent enormous sums of money to
build the better iron lung. Then, along came Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, who developed vaccines to eliminate polio. Society is again
trying to build the better iron lung by enacting regulations to strengthen buildings from hurricane force winds and design walls
around coastal cities to accommodate sea level rise. Workshops are provided the world over on these topics, and become politically
charged whenever the big one(hurricane or very hot summer) hits. Very little attention is ever given to prevention. But is it possible
to reverse the greenhouse effect? Is it reasonable to even talk about preventing hurricanes? Should we tamper with Mother Nature?
About Mother Nature, nothing wrong with helping her overcome problems she creates. We already wear clothing to shield from
severe weather, suntan lotion to minimize skin cancer, and enjoy air-conditioning. But again, this is reacting to the forces and not
necessarily test, or improve upon, the basic nature of being. The U.S. Department of Commerce on May 24 of 1993 hosted a
gathering at its headquarters on 14th Street in Washington, D.C., ostensibly to talk about OTEC plant-ships as a major defense
conversion or National Institute of Science and Technology advanced technology program initiative. It might be indicated that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), a component of the Commerce Department, has historically been
sensitive about hurricanes because of past debacles. Representatives from General Dynamics, Lockheed, various Washington, D.C.-
based consulting firms, the University of Hawaii, Florida Atlantic University, Johns Hopkins University, and NOAA surmised that a
national program to explore the potential of preventing or ameliorating hurricanes was sensible. Groups were formed to identify
realistic mechanisms for hurricane prevention, develop computer models to optimize at-sea experiments, recommend a financing
plan to implement the program design, build and operate up to 500 floating plantships, and recommend a financing plan to
implement the program. The next two sections touch on the team assigned the basic modeling program. Hurricane Prevention In
1992, hurricanes caused more than $30 billion of damage in the United States. The prospect of global climate warming will only
mean more intense and frequent hurricanes, as they do not form in the North Atlantic when the monthly mean temperature is less
than 26.8Jover a minimum area of about 10 million square kilometers(approximately 3 square miles). Hurricanes form in these
warmer waters and dissipate when incurring a temperature drop of 2J. Thus, if a mechanism can be found to lower the
temperature of the ocean surface in those areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans where hurricanes/typhoons are normally
generated, it is possible that the frequency or severity of them can be minimized, if not entirely eliminated. If prevention is not
attainable, then the imposition of a cold band across the path might weaken or divert the storm. Reversing Global Climate Warming
There is about as much carbon in living plants and animals as there is in the atmosphere. However, there is seven times more each in
recoverable fossil fuels and dissolved bicarbonate and carbonate in the oceanK and about 100,000 times more as carbonate in
sedimentary rocks, which are the fossil remains of animal skeletons. As relatively insignificant as the carbon in the atmosphere might
be, a doubling of the CO2and other green house gas level by the next century, which has been predicted by most modellers, will
increase global temperatures from 1.5 to 4.5 [degrees Celsius]C. The solution to remediating global warming is relatively simple:
reduce greenhouse gas emissions(CO2 represents about half the effect [Ramanathan 1987]) and enhance the activity of natural
sinks. The model is complicated by volcanic dust, severe forest fire seasons, and the like, but less use of fossil fuels, more intelligent
land management, and enhancement of carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans are addressable targets. Much of the ocean attention
has thus far been restricted to high-latitude productivity and the influence of iron. Among other options are utilization of marine
mineral accretion for ocean structures(Hilbertz 1991) and artificial upwelling on grazing platforms along the equatorial belt. The
remainder of this paper will summarize this latter alternative. There have been several important ocean conferences and workshops
which have treated the subject of artificial upwelling, including:
the First National Science Foundation Workshop on Engineering Solutions for the Utilization of Exclusive Economic Zone
Resources(Hawaii, October 1986);
Planning Workshop on Mitigation of Global Climate Change(Hawaii, March 1989), involving representatives from the Environmental
Protection Agency, NOAA, Electric Power Research Institute, and academia;
NSF and Republic of China National Science Council International Workshop on Artificial Upwelling and Mixing in Coastal
Waters(Taiwan, June 1989);
NSF and Japan Science and Technology Agency Workshop on Artificial Upwelling(Hawaii, March 1990);
NSF First International Workshop on Engineering Research Needs for Off-Shore Mariculture Systems(Hawaii, September 1991);
NSF Franco-American Program Development Workshop on Ocean Engineering, Marine Biotechnology and Mariculture(Maryland,
October 1991); and
NSF and NOAA National Ocean Resource 2000 Workshop(Hawaii, June 1992).
There have been various other conferences and workshops that have since carried on the thrust of the discussion, but the basic
ideas were generated at the sessions above. Two potential oceanic mechanisms to help mitigate global warming are (Phillips et al.,
1991):
enhanced carbon dioxide uptake via nutrient subsidy to marine algae and subsequent deposition in marine sediments and
enhanced dimethyl sulfide production via marine algae to increase cloud formation and albedo.
Regarding the carbon uptake hypothesis, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere has been increasing at about 1.5 parts per million annually, which
accounts for an accumulation of approximately 3 gigatons of carbon/year. If application of nutrient subsidy could enhance phytoplankton
productivity such that 10% of the open ocean net primary production is buried in deep-sea
sediments(an order of magnitude higher than the 1% deposited under natural conditions), then 2 gigatons carbon/year could
be removed to mitigate the greenhouse effect. This amount would decrease atmospheric CO2
concentration at a rate of about one ppm/year. By controlling the amount of fertilizer applied to the worlds oceans, the temperature of the
planet could thus be controlled. With respect to dimethyl sulfide, a metabolic waste product of oceanic phytoplankton and
the primary source of sulfate aerosol and cloud condensation nucleii in the remote marine atmosphere, an increase would upgrade
cloud formation and subsequent albedo, which would reduce the global temperature. Specifically, the
mean temperature might be reduced by 1.3[degrees Celsius]C through a 30% increase in albedo resulting from the biogenic sulfate induced cloud
formation. Conclusion: Project Blue Revolution An international partnership of industry, government, and academia to design, build and operate a VLFS
powered by OTEC and producing the range of co-products while providing environmental benefits would be a magnificent undertaking for the new
millennium(Takahashi, 1996). As developed by a 1992 workshop in Hawaii of 50 participants representing six nations(Takahashi and Vadus, 1992), the
Blue Revolution plantship would be a 1 hectare(100,000 square feet) grazing structure estimated to cost $500 million for full operation early in the 21st
Century to: While $500 million might seem staggeringly high, one might consider that this sum represents one tenth of 1% the cost
of the 1991 Gulf War and one-fifth the current value of each B-1 bomber. Reports also indicate that the U.S. space station would
have cost $50 billion and the Mars Project about $500 billion. Now that dreams have come back down to earth, this pioneering
venture to develop next generation marine products for Humanity while, possibly, enhancing the environment, seems like a wise
bargain.

Warming causes extinction - a preponderance of evidence proves it's real,
anthropogenic, and outweighs other threats
Deibel 7
(Terry, "Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft," Conclusion: American Foreign
Affairs Strategy Today)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future,
demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all
earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed
through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that
anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible
to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast
international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of
newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent
storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and
aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days
earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have
concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is
estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to
Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles
from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial
revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by
2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to
slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how
serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent
storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the
Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20
feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic
effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather
in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once
estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6
percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most
frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the
buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface
temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one
was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds continuing enhancement of
the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of
New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to het the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the
poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a
thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet. Global warming is
the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better
supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security
and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
Ocean acidification will cause extinction
Romm 2012 (Joe Romm, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress,
March 2, 2012, Science: Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanitys Ability to Feed Itself,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-
threatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/)

The worlds oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during four major
extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study
in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time
period. What were doing today really stands out, said lead author Brbel Hnisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia Universitys
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped outnew species
evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we
may lose organisms we care aboutcoral reefs, oysters, salmon. Thats the news release from a major 21-author Science
paper, The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification (subs. reqd). We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans
are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. But this study
looked back over 300 million and found that the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place has put marine life
at risk in a frighteningly unique way: the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a
combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history,
raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change. That is to say, its not just that
acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown by end of century as a 2010 Geological Society study put it. We are also
warming the ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass extinction. A 2009
Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones devoid of fish and seafood are poised to expand and remain for thousands
of years.


99.99% of scientists believe in global warming
Jogalekar, chemist interested in the history and philosophy of science, 2014
*Ashutosh, January 10, About that consensus on global warming: The Curious Wavefunction,
Scientific American Blog Network., Scientific American Global RSS. from
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-
consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/, Retrieved July 3, 2014, WZ]

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications,
he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who
propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition
Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers. Its worth noting how many
authors agree with the basic fact of global warming more than nine thousand. And thats just in a single year.
Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there arent even a handful of
scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. Its not like
we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%. Isnt it remarkable that
among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and
largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the
phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the
evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the
system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate
scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian
explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.
Contention 2: Oil
OTEC provides an economically, environmentally, and technically viable form of
sustainable hydrogen production
Ryzin, Ph.D in Ocean Engineering, Grandelli, Senior Ocean Engineer in charge of
OTEC design, Lipp, Ocean Engineer working in OTEC software, Argall, Ocean
Engineer at Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc, 2005
*Joseph V., Patrick, David, Richard, 2005, Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc., The Hydrogen
Economy of 2050: OTEC Driven?, http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/energie/hydrogene.pdf,
6-24-14, KB]
Depending upon the outcome of the NAEs four pivotal questions, it will be 10-30 years (or perhaps never) until the hydrogen economy develops. One initial
method where the U.S. can begin a shift to carbon-free domestic energy using present
technology is to use OTEC-derived hydrogen to produce ammonia. OTEC ammonia would compete with ammonia made from foreign natural
gas, reducing American dependence on imported energy.
The single largest worldwide use of hydrogen (25 million tonnes worldwide) is as an
intermediate step in the production of 140 million tonnes of ammonia from natural gas. High
natural gas prices in the U.S. are causing increased import of ammonia synthesized from low-cost foreign natural gas [26]. In 2004,
the U.S. imported 6 million tonnes of ammonia, equivalent to 1 million tonnes of hydrogen, which represents one-eighth of U.S.
hydrogen production. Ammonia is shipped worldwide using propane tankers much simpler than shipping hydrogen.
We modified our baseline 100-tonne per day OTEC hydrogen model to include costs of the ammonia synthesis reactor vessels,
nitrogen air separation unit, and 14-day storage. Electrolyzer purchase cost was increased to today's value of $1000 per kW [17]
instead of the $125 per kW future value. Financing was modified to 5% interest and a 30-year design life and assumes that federal
obligation guarantees, up to $1.65 billion have been obtained from the United States' OTEC Demonstration Fund [27]. Constructing
such a plant seems within present offshore fabrication capabilities. Table 5 presents the costs of major subsystems of this plant.
The cost per tonne of ammonia with these parameters is $494 per tonne, as shown in Fig. 11. This price is 66% more than the
current price of $297 per tonne for imported ammmonia[28]. One or two decades in the future, it is quite conceivable that ammonia
from natural gas would cost the same as ammonia from OTEC.
A tax credit of 1.9 per kWhr for renewable energy production [29] presently exists. If this tax credit is applied to ammonia
production, the cost for Subsidized OTEC 2010 ammonia becomes a nearly competitive $335 per tonne. This subsidized cost would
be competitive if natural gas costs increase 13%.
This study developed a technical and economic model for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
plants supplying a widespread hydrogen economy. Upon comparing the results with other
potential hydrogen sources, its clear that no source is ideal but OTEC is attractive overall. Momentous
choices must be made.
Major technical breakthroughs, especially for hydrogen storage, are needed for the hydrogen economy to evolve.
With these breakthroughs, OTEC hydrogen will cost slightly more than biomass gasification and wind turbine electrolysis, but
significantly less than solar photo-voltaic electrolysis.
Coal gasification and nuclear thermochemical splitting with CO2 or nuclear waste sequestration will cost the least. Both entail
technical risks and bequeath humankind with potentially catastrophic stored waste.
Massive-scale biomass and wind energy will displace limited land resources used for farming and living. Massive-scale solar
energy is the highest cost option.
OTEC is the most sustainable massive-scale energy source. It is the only source that uses
non-intermittent solar energy, and it does not use land.
Ammonia created using OTEC with present technology could reduce foreign energy
imported in the form of ammonia. OTEC ammonia with subsidies is within 13% of the
present ammonia market price.
OTEC is both a technically and economically viable hydrogen production pathway for delivery
of massive quantities of energy; it is cost competitive with other renewable technologies and it is
environmentally sustainable. OTEC should be considered a legitimate player in the envisioned hydrogen economy but ironically it is
barely mentioned today in hydrogen economy documents. The US and the world are on a path towards a non-oil-based future and the decisions ahead
are momentous. As a minimum, OTEC, which is low-risk and environmentally sustainable, should be developed in parallel with those other technologies
that appear to be economically attractive but have significant environmental risks attached. Technically, environmentally and economically not
considering OTEC is a risk the world can not afford to take.

The future of sustainable energy is dependent upon hydrogen fuel sources,
which produce no CO2, are incredibly efficient, and shifts the globe away from
oil dependence
Edwards, Head of Organic Chemistry Oxford University, et al, 2008
[Peter P., Dr Vladimir L. Kuznetsov Research Fellow University of Oxford, Professor William I. F.
David, Visiting Professor in Inorganic Chemistry University of Oxford, Professor Nigel Brandon
Shell Chair in Sustainable Development in Energy Imperial College, London, Office of Science and
Innovation UK, Hydrogen and fuel cells: towards a sustainable energy future,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/energy/hydrogen-and-fuel-cells-towards-a-
sustainable-future.pdf, 6/25/14, KB]
Hydrogen is a very attractive alternative fuel. It can be obtained from diverse resources, both
renewable (hydro, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal) and non-renewable (coal, natural gas,
nuclear). Hydrogen can then be utilized in high-efficiency power-generation systems, including fuel
cells for both vehicular transportation and distributed electricity generation. Fuel cells convert
hydrogen or a hydrogen-rich fuel and an oxidant (usually pure oxygen or oxygen from the air)
directly into electricity by an electrochemical process. Fuel cells, operating on hydrogen or
hydrogen-rich fuels, have the potential to become major factors in catalyzing the transition to a
future sustainable energy system with low-CO2 emissions. The importance attached to such developments is rapidly
increasing. Many countries are now compiling roadmaps, in many cases with specific numerical targets for the advancement of fuel-
cell and hydrogen technologies. As just one potent example, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has now set a target of
5 million hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles and 10 million kW for the total power generation by stationary fuel cells by the year 2020! At
the present time, there are three major technological barriers that must be overcome for a transition from a carbon-based (fossil
fuel) energy system to a hydrogen-based economy. First, the cost of efficient and sustainable hydrogen production and delivery
must be significantly reduced. Second, new generations of hydrogen storage systems for both vehicular and stationary applications
must be developed. Finally, the cost of fuel-cell and other hydrogen-based systems must be reduced. The vision of such an
integrated energy system of the future would combine large and small fuel cells for domestic and decentralized heat and electricity
power generation with local (or more extended) hydrogen supply networks that would also be used to fuel conventional (internal
combustion) or fuel-cell vehicles. Unlike coal, gas or oil, hydrogen is not a primary energy source. Its role more closely mirrors that of
electricity as an 'energy carrier', which first is produced using energy from another source and then transported for future use,
where its stored chemical energy can be utilized. Hydrogen can be stored as a fuel and utilized in
transportation and distributed heat and power generation using fuel cells, internal
combustion engines or turbines, and, importantly, a hydrogen fuel cell produces only water
and no CO2. Hydrogen can also be used as a storage medium for electricity generated from
intermittent, renewable resources such as solar, wind, wave and tidal power. It therefore provides the solution to one of
the major issues of sustainable energy, namely the vexing problem of intermittency of supply. As long as the hydrogen is produced
from non-fossil-fuel feed stock, it is a genuinely green fuel. Moreover, locally produced hydrogen allows the introduction of
renewable energy to the transport sector, provides potentially large economic and energy
security advantages and the benefits of an infrastructure based on distributed generation. It is
this key element of the energy storage capacity of hydrogen that provides the potent link
between sustainable energy technologies and a sustainable energy economy, generally placed
under the umbrella term of 'hydrogen economy'.

TWO IMPACT SCENARIOS
Oil dependence causes war
-First is China
Oil dependence causes massive Chinese aggression over perception of a U.S.
energy containment policy- that creates multiple flashpoints for conflict and
military build-ups
Salameh, International Association for Energy Economics International Oil
Economist, 2014
(Dr Mamdouh G., Oil Wars, file:///C:/Users/loganmcroberts/Downloads/SSRN-id2430960.pdf, accessed 6/25/14, LLM)
The great rivalry between the United States and China will shape the 21st century. It is a truth
universally acknowledged that a great power will never voluntarily surrender pride of place to a
challenger. The United States is the pre-eminent great power. China is now its potential challenger.
Though a terrifying possibility, a war between the oil titans could be triggered by a race to secure a share of
dwindling reserves of oil or over Taiwan or over the disputed Islands in the South China Sea claimed
by both China and Japan with the US coming to the defence of Japan. In such conflicts, the
United States would try to starve China of oil by blocking any oil supplies from the Middle East
passing through the Strait of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca.
Chinas robust economic growth and its emergence as an economic superpower would falter without oil,
particularly from the Middle East. Chinas global oil diplomacy is, therefore, geared towards ensuring that
this never happens. 26
As Chinese state-owned companies scour the globe for oil and gas to fuel their countrys rapid economic growth, criticism of China
for supporting despotic, oil-rich regimes, for driving up U.S. oil prices, and for worsening global warming has grown more strident.
Some Washington hard-liners say the United States should prepare for future energy conflict with
China by strengthening alliances with key oil producers while denying China access to strategic
oil supplies.
Such policies would increase Chinese concern about the security of oil supplies, encourage China
to lock in oil resources from unsavoury regimes, and undermine moderates in Beijing. Hard-line
policies on oil could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy, fostering a new Cold War between
the United States and China and possibly a hot one.
Chinas economic boom, fuelled by its massive supply of coal, has begun to overwhelm its domestic energy resources. While coal still
meets 68% of Chinas primary energy needs, the percentage filled by imported oil is growing. A net oil exporter in 1993, China today
is the worlds largest importer and the second-largest consumer of oil. Over the next 15 years, its demand is expected to roughly
double.
By 2020, China will likely import 70% of the oil it consumes, compared to 65% today. 27 Chinas leaders
worry that this dependence on imported oil leaves them vulnerable, since long-term global
energy scarcity that undermines economic growth and increases unemployment could bring social
instability.
Beijing also worries that the United States will exploit its energy weakness. For some people in
Washington, Chinas global oil strategy is a menace to U.S. interests. They would deny China
access to energy resources, build up U.S. military capability and strengthen alliances with key
oil-producing states. Africa, which supplies over a quarter of Chinas oil and gas imports and is
expected to provide a quarter of all U.S. oil imports by 2015, is already emerging as the next point
of discord. The newest U.S. military command, AFRICOM, focuses on the Gulf of Guinea, a region
dominated by major oil-producing states.
The growing dependence on oil imports particularly from the Middle East has created an increasing sense of energy insecurity
among Chinese leaders. Some Chinese analysts even refer to the possibility that the US is practicing an
energy containment policy toward China, or could implement one in the future. Chinese leaders
tend to believe that dependence on imported oil leads to great strategic vulnerability. The war
on Iraq and growing US hegemony in the Middle East have made it even more urgent for China to
reduce its dependence on the Arab Gulf. 28
Much of Chinas imported oil from the Middle East must pass through a major chokepoint: the Strait
of Hormuz which is guarded by the US navy (see Figure 1).

China war escalates to extinction
Wittner 11 professor of history emeritus at SUNY Albany, 2011
[Lawrence, 11-30-2011, Is Nuclear War with China Possible,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.html, DOI
7/12014]
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries
international conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The
current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another
example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China's growing economic
and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China's claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia,
and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting
our own position as a Pacific power." But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could.
After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S.
government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during their conflict over the future of China's offshore
islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear
weapons would "be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else." Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons
then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But
the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when
both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is
raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars
between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven't been very many -- at least not yet. But the Kargil War of
1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that
such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened that, if the
war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear
weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an
attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don't nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn't
feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to respond to a Soviet
conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the
nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not
have resorted to championing "Star Wars" and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive -- and probably unworkable
-- military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those
Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its
Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over 5,000 nuclear
warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly 300 . Moreover, only about 40
of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would "win" any nuclear war
with China. But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons
would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire,
while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death
toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering,
radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot
out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating
worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the
extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding
its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of
nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to
spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear production
facilities over the next decade.


-Next is Middle East war
Dependency causes Middle East conflict, instability and fuels totalitarian
governments in the region
Otto, International Relations Graduate Scholar for Indiana University, 2009 (Zach, U.S.
Dependency on Middle Eastern Oil, http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-
honors/honors_vol.3_no.4.pdf, accessed 6/24/14, LLM)
By importing Middle Eastern oil the US is funding the governments of the exporting states. These
governments and the people they serve are in large part at odds with US beliefs. By continuing to fund
these totalitarian regimes the US is helping to ensure that they have no incentive to change. In
a country run with oil money there is no incentive for the government to tap into its people to come up with better leadership
strategies or new business. This money has a tendency to impede the institutions and values necessary for a free, democratic,
market based economy. Money from oil is literally funding the entire government and stratifying the social structure. With a wealthy
upper class and very poor lower class there is inevitable civil unrest. Iraq is a good example. It is difficult to get figures from
corresponding years due to the secrecy of the Hussein regime, but US intelligence agencies have gathered some information. Money
from oil has been streaming into Iraq since the discovery of oil there in 1908.xx Oil money accounted for roughly 60% of Iraqs GDP
from 1989 until 1996.xxi However, according to the CIA, the per capita GDP in 2008 was US$4,000. With the Iraqi gross domestic
product of US$112.8 billion in 2008 and a population of just under 30 million, the math doesnt add up. This disparity clearly shows
the unfairness of money disparity in Iraq between the ruling and middle and lower classes. Also, because of the lack of other
industries besides oil, the unemployment rate in 2008 hovered somewhere in between 18 and 30 percent. There are other factors
including the war that are involved in this figure, but if one looks at pre-war figures, they are similarly dismal. In 2000 the Iraqi GDP
was US$33 billion (2003 US dollars), per capita GDP was US$887.17xxiii. The unemployment rate is contested for year 2000 until the
overthrow of Hussein, but in 2003 it was between 50 and 60 percent. These statistics show how the investment in the oil industry in
Iraq has greatly hindered its development. As can be seen in this example, by the United States investing
so heavily in Iraqi oil it has inadvertently blocked development from occurring because all of
the money went to the unstable Iraqi government and already wealthy individuals in Iraqs society. With this
occurring, civil unrest evolved into an all out war. Iraq is now all but dependent on oil revenues and aid from
other countries (including the US) to develop or simply sustain itself as a country. Since until recently, Iraq has been largely financed
through its natural resources, it has had no incentive to evolve into a multi-industry nation with a market based economy that could
benefit it by entering into trade with other nations. By not being able to enter international markets and trade with other nations,
reverse globalization has occurred. This has occurred in Iraq and, though improving, Iraq is still politically unstable and a trade
liability for all nations). Instead of countries like Iraq benefitting from comparative advantages and
information and technology trading, they doom themselves by developing only one industry
(natural resources). Could this not be a comparative advantage? It certainly can be. However, as mentioned earlier, with the
majority of a nations funds being drawn from one industry and then reinvested into the industry or simply misused, social structural
differences are stratified, other industries cannot get the funding they need to develop, and the very infrastructure of political and
social institutions necessary for growth are not able to be formed. Money coming into a developing nation needs to be spread out
across all economic sectors to allow for efficient growth. The USs heavy dependence on Middle Eastern oil
funds this exact problem and leads to political and therefore social unrest in such nations. This unrest
leads to radicalism and the ultimate problems like war that the US is currently facing in the Middle East. A problem
unique to the United States is that of the war in the Middle East. It is difficult to classify the issue as the War on Terror because of
the US deep involvement in each countrys political climate as well as their economies. Many argue that it isnt a war on
terror but a war for resources. This is an issue that is beyond the focus of this paper, but it must be recognized as a
definite influence on all that occurs in the Middle East both now and in the future.

Middle East wars cause extinction
Dr. Russel, associate professor at Naval Postgraduate School , 2009
[James A, Spring 2009, Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for
Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East, Security Studies Center,
file:///C:/Users/langme11/Downloads/IFRI_PP26_Russell_2009.pdf]
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that
can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability
into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent
relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United
States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to pre-
emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a
communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive
bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of
miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios
under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons
from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the
probability of war a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely
develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take
this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented
disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.
Contention 3: Sea Colonies
OTEC is key to sustainable ocean colonization it produces net energy and food
Savage, Professor of English, 94
[Marshall, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps, page 33-34, BS]
The pulsing heart of Aquarius is an OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Converter). The OTEC produces electrical power by exploiting
the temperature differential between warm surface waters and cold deep waters. Aquarius has a long tap root that penetrates to the cold deep waters of the sea. By taking in
warm water from the surface and sucking up cold water from the depths, OTECs generate electrical power. Most power generating facilities conform to the zero-sum rules. They consume more energy than they
produce. A typical nuclear power plant consumes 3000 calories of energy for every 1000 it produces. This is not unlike the thermodynamics of a cow who consumes three pounds of grain for every pound of milk
she produces. Unlike conventional power plants, OTECs are net energy producers. An OTEC consumes only 700 calories of energy for every 1000 it produces. 24 This is a
characteristic that OTECs share with most solar powered devices, including green plants. The OTEC consumes no fuel, so the only energy the system requires is that needed to construct and operate it. By virtue of
its ability to absorb solar energy, and to use that energy to impose higher states of order on the materials in its environment, the OTEC, like a living plant, is able to operate in defiance
of the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, the law is not violated in the broader universe, since the sun is providing the energy, and it is running down, just as the law
demands. But it will be a long time before we have to include the fusion engine of the sun in our calculations of local entropy. For the time being, we can consider sunlight as a free good, outside the limits of our
earthbound system of energy accounting. The anti-entropic nature of OTECs is what distinguishes Aquarius as a new cybergenic life form. Like a plant, Aquarius will grow organically from a seed by feeding
directly on sunlight; it will create itself out of the raw amorphous materials in its environment; and, it will produce an abundance of precious resources out of little more
than sunlight and sea water. In a broad sense, therefore, Aquarius can be considered a life forma macro-organism, a super-plant. Guided by on-board computer intelligence,
Aquarius will grow its own structure out of the sea. This will be accomplished by a process akin to that used by shellfish. Building materials will be amassed by accreting minerals dissolved in sea water. Sheltered
and nurtured like the cells in a silicate sponge, thousands of people can live comfortably in this organic structure. In the process of producing power, the OTECs pump vast
quantities of cold water up from the depths. This deep water is saturated with nitrogen and other nutrients. When this nutrient-rich water hits
the warm sunlit surface, algae populations explode. The algae are cultivated in broad shallow containment ponds that spread out around the central island of Aquarius
like the leaves of a water lily. The algae soak in the tropical sun, absorbing the rich nutrient broth from the depths and producing millions of tons of protein.
Current politics always exacerbate resource conflicts only the plan allows a
non-zero sum resource collaboration
Savage, Professor of English, 94
[Marshall, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps, page 32-33, BS]
In the process of vaulting between evolutionary planes, the Aquarian sea colonies will shatter the old limits of the zero-sum
resource game. In a 'zero-sum' game there are limited quantities of some critical component. If one player has more, some other player must have less. Poker is a
zero-sum game. If one player is getting richer, other players are getting poorer. The world today plays a sophisticated game of resource poker, in which some countries enrich
themselves by impoverishing others. Aquarius breaks the rules of this game by dumping more chips on the table. It's like playing table stakes poker with a vacuum hose
connected to Scrooge McDuck's vault. Fracturing zero-sum barriers is nothing new for Life on Earth. New life-forms have always taken quantum evolutionary leaps creating
abundance out of nothing. When plants first colonized the land, vast carboniferous forests sprang up where nothing had grown before. In the same way, Aquarius
will colonize a presently barren ecologythe open reaches of the mid-oceans. In the process, Aquarius, like the early forests, will
create a wealth of new resources to be shared by all life. At this stage in its evolutionary history, the world needs a new macro-organie life form. A life form
is, by definition, antientropic, and so can add to the total order of its system. Any viable solution to the global resource crisis must
be anti-entropic. Any entropic approach to increasing food and energy, like Herculean irrigation projects or nuclear power plants, will inevitably place new
demands on the pre-existing /ero-sum resource base. Borrowing from the common resource pool can redistribute global problems, but it can't solve them; it always creates new
problems to replace the old ones. To break out of this animal-based predatory cycle takes an entirely new
approachcybergenesis. Through cybergenesis. Life on Earth will take a quantum leap up the evolutionary ladder; implementing the type of order
expanding solution that Life has always used to broaden and deepen its hold on existence. Following the cybergenic pathway. Life can
evolve itself out of its present resource trap.

Even one full-scale 100mw OTEC plant will snowball to full scale sea colonies.
Savage, Professor of English, 94
[Marshall, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps, page 62-64, BS]
The starting seed for Aquarius will be a single OTEC module. The energies involved in Ocean Thermal systems are very
dilute warm water instead of high-pressure steam. Therefore, huge volumes are required to extract energy efficiently. OTEC components, are
correspondingly large. A single OTEC platform, will be 284 feet (86.56 m.) across. The first platform will be grown up to a height of 210 feet before the
next ring of modules is started. After the first ring has grow to a height of 130 feet, the next ring of modules is started. Aquarius grows, one
module at a time, until it achieves its full sizenot unlike a plant. The central tower, and the six surrounding towers, are
supported by OTEC platforms. Each of the seven OTECs can produce 100 megawatts of electrical power, with
the dimensions of the OTEC machinery determining the size of the towers. 107 Each OTEC platform will provide a net buoyant force
capable of supporting 360,000 tons. 108 This excess buoyancy is an asset of tremendous value. The seven OTECs form the core of the
island from which the rest of Aquarius grows. The OTECs are the first elements of the structure to be constructed. Each
power plant is brought on line before the next in the series is started. When all seven OTECs are in place, the rest of the island is grown around them.

Sea colonization independently solves ALL extinction threats
Savage, Professor of English, 94
[Marshall, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps, page 94-95, BS]
Every space colony is an ark. Aquarius will serve not only as the jumping off point for the colonization of space, but also as a reserve ark for the potential
recolonization of Earth. Life must be preserved; we, the caretakers of Life, must survive to preserve it. Our planet is threatened by a
variety of calamities. Some are developing as slowly as an eroding atmosphere; others could come as suddenly as a nuclear blast. In any case, if catastrophe does overtake us,
there must be some seed of surviving human culture from which to rebuild civilization. Without man, or some other intelligent tool user, Life will be
condemned to remain bound to this single tiny planetperhaps forever. If Life is to survive then we too must survive. Aquarius can
fulfill the role of planetary ark admirably. Sheltered in the warm equatorial waters, our floating marine colony can survive almost any
conceivable disaster, including nuclear war. The warm waters of the tropical oceans will give up only a fraction of their heat even if the rest
of the planet is plunged into nuclear winter for months. Similarly, the catastrophic climatic effects of nuclear winter that will ravage the mid-
latitudes with colossal hurricanes, typhoons, and tornadoes, will leave the stable equatorial belt more or less unaffected.
Aquarius is self-sufficient in energy, food, and most other things. While the rest of humanity attempts to cope with a shattered world: unable to raise crops, perhaps for years;
ravaged by social and political anarchy; decimated by plagues, pestilence, floods and droughts; and slowly poisoned by radiation in the food chain; the people of
Aquarius will be relatively unharmed. The social dissolution following nuclear war is likely to be as destructive to life and civilization as the war itself.
No trace of social order is likely to survive in the countries actually blasted by lite bombs. Massive upheavals will shred the already tattered social fabric even in countries left
unmolested. By the time radiation, starvation, riots, poverty and disease have reaped their grim harvest, there will be only isolated pockets of survivors clinging to life here and
there around the world. At that point, it will be up to the scientists, technicians, artists, poets, and philosophers of Aquarius just as in the
legends of Atlantisto recolonize this planet.
Plan
The United States federal government should substantially increase its
development of ocean thermal energy resources by:
-Streamlining the regulatory framework for ocean thermal energy projects to
permit one-stop shop licensing by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
-Reactivating the dedicated budget line item for Department of Energy research
and development of ocean thermal energy conversion.
-Providing federal cost-sharing to develop prototype OTEC commercial electric
plants.

Contention 4: Solvency
Regulatory uncertainty is the largest obstacle to OTEC - creating a one-stop
shop for OTEC licensing is essential to ocean energy development.
Todd Griset, J.D. and Masters in Environmental Studies @ UPenn, currently
practices law with Preti Flahertys Energy and Telecommunications Group, 2011
Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 16 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 395
HARNESSING THE OCEAN'S POWER: OPPORTUNITIES IN RENEWABLE OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES p. l/n
Furthermore, clarification and simplification of the patchwork of regulatory regimes governing renewable ocean energy projects will bring about
additional reductions in the cost of energy from the sea. As a general principle, uncertainty or inconsistency of regulation tends to deter development
and investment. n227 Unknown or shifting regulatory regimes add risk to the development of any given project. n228 Indeed, in the context of ocean
energy, regulatory uncertainty has been called "the most significant non-technical obstacle to deployment
of this new technology." n229 Consistent government commitment and the simplification of licensing and permitting
procedures, rank among the [*433] hallmarks of a well-planned system for developing ocean renewable energy. n230 Arguably, such a system has not
yet been fully realized. Some observers believe that the MOU between MMS and FERC has "resolved the uncertainty" over the jurisdictional question,
and by extension, over the question of which set of regulations a developer of a project on the OCS must follow. n231 On the other hand, the dual
process created by the MOU under which MMS/BOEMRE must first approve a site and issue a lease, after which FERC may issue a license or exemption,
may lead to delays in the development of hydrokinetic energy resources on the OCS. n232 Nevertheless, the agencies have committed
themselves to cooperate and have issued guidance suggesting that where possible, the agencies will combine their National
Environmental Policy Act processes. n233 At the same time, technologies such as OTEC remain under the jurisdiction of NOAA. As
noted above, a host of other federal agencies retain authority to regulate various aspects of renewable ocean energy
projects. The nation's regulatory program for ocean energy projects thus lacks a single "one-stop shop"
approach for project licensure, site leasing, and other required permitting. Project developers must not only obtain permits
from a variety of federal and state entities, but moreover face uncertainty as to which permits may be required. The
net impact of this regulatory patchwork is to place a chilling effect on the comprehensive development of the nation's renewable ocean energy
resources. Moreover, few renewable ocean energy projects have been fully permitted. Indeed, the Cape Wind project represents the first commercial-
scale offshore wind project to complete its permitting and licensing path. n234 Although each future project's details and regulatory [*434] path may
be unique, the success of the first United States offshore wind project to go through the public regulatory process provides subsequent developers with
valuable insight into challenges, procedures, and provides an understanding of how to apportion permitting and development costs with greater
certainty. n235 However, because that path took nine years to navigate, and because many of the regulatory shifts described herein occurred during
that time, project developers today will face a different regulatory structure than that faced by Cape Wind. Moreover,
depending on the technology involved, site-specific issues, and the regulatory environment of each state, each project must in essence forge its own
path forward toward complete regulatory approval. Congressional action could further streamline the regulatory
framework applicable to renewable ocean energy projects. Providing a stable structure for the
development of the oceans' renewable energy potential would reduce the capital cost required to develop a given project. By providing a clear and
consistent legal path for project developers to follow, such legislation would enable the best ocean energy projects
to become more cost-competitive. This in turn could provide benefits along the lines of those cited by the Massachusetts Department
of Public Utilities in approving the Cape Wind power purchase agreement: economic development, a diversified energy policy, greater energy
independence, and reduced carbon emissions. The states' role in such a regulatory framework should be respected. While renewable power benefits
the region, the nation, and the world at large, most of the negative impacts of a given project are felt locally. Establishing a clear regulatory framework
including appropriate federal agencies as well as state authority could empower greater development of ocean energy resources without sacrificing
values such as navigational rights, fisheries and wildlife, aesthetic considerations, and states' rights.
Our oceans hold vast promise. The opportunity to transform that potential into usable energy is significant. Whether developing that
potential into commercial-scale energy production is a reasonable choice remains to be seen. If renewable ocean energy resources
are to be developed, promoting regulatory certainty would do much to promote their cost-effective development.

OTEC R and D should be renewed now - federal support is essential for
commercialization. OTEC is effective, cost-competitive, provides nutrients for
marine life, reduces oil imports, and solves CO2 emissions.
Avery, former director of ocean energy programs, and Berl, a member of the
principal staff at APL, 13
*William, Walter, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11/27, Solar Energy
from the Tropical Oceans, http://issues.org/14-2/avery-2/, 6/27/14, BS]
Long neglected, ocean thermal energy conversion deserves renewed attention and federal support.The recent
climate change conference in Kyoto underscored once again how profoundly the world needs new energy sources that do not produce carbon dioxide or create other environmental problems. Yet little attention is being paid to one completely untapped resource
with the potential to become an enormous energy store. It is ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), an option largely neglected since the energy crisis of the 1970s.OTEC is an application of solar energy that exploits the heat that the ocean captures fromthe
suns rays. It is particularly appealing because the energy it generates can produce enormous quantities of nonpolluting fuel s (such as hydrogen and ammonia) for transportation and also furnish energy for other applications that are now dependent on fossil fuels. It
thus has environmental advantages over fossil fuels and nuclear power; avoids land-use problems associated with renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, biomass, and hydroelectric power; and has the potential to
producefar more useful and affordable energy than could be obtained fromother renewable sources. OTEC is a technology for converting some of the energy that the tropical oceans absorb fromthe
sun, first into electricity and then into fuels. During an average day, the 60 million square kilometers of surface waters of the tropical oceans (located approximately 10 degrees north to 10 degrees south of the equator) absorb one quadrillion megajoules of solar
energy-equivalent to the energy that would be released by the combustion of 170 billion barrels of oil per day. The surface waters are a warm-water reservoir 35 to 100 meters deep that is maintained night and day at a temperature of 25 to 28 degrees celsius (C).
Below about 800 meters, an enormous source of ice-cold water, which is fed by currents flowing along the ocean bottom fromthe northern and southern polar regions, is maintained at about 4C. OTEC uses this temperature difference to generate electric power.
In principle, it is not complicated. Warm water is drawn from the surface layer into a heat exchanger (boiler) to vaporize a liquid with a boiling point of about -30C (liquid propane, liquid ammonia, and several fluorocarbons are examples). The vapor drives a turbine
attached to an electric generator. Exhaust vapor fromthe turbine is subsequently condensed in a second heat exchanger, which is cooled by water pumped fromthe cold water source below. The condensed vapor is then returned to the boiler to complete a cycle
that will generate electricity 24 hours a day throughout the year (with a few weeks of down time for plant maintenance). Analysis of the OTEC cycle indicates that equatorial OTEC plant ships slowly grazing on warmsurface water at 1/2 knot coul d continuously
generate more than 5 megawatts-electric (MWe) of net electric power per square kilometer of tropical ocean. The electricity generated would be converted to chemical energy on board the plant ship by electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen. For some uses,
such as furnishing fuel for the space shuttle, these chemicals can be liquefied and stored for periodic transfer to shore. However, to provide products that can be handled more easily for delivery to world ports, the hydrogen would be combined on shipboard with
nitrogen (extracted fromthe air via liquefaction) to synthesize ammonia. Methanol fuel may also be produced with a supply of carbon, which coal colliers could bring to the plant ship. Engineering studies indicate that OTEC plant ships
designed to produce 100 to 400 MWe (net) of electricity (which is between 10 and 40 percent of the output of a large conventional power plant) would be the optimum
size for commercial operation. TheU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored engineering designs that were developed between 1975 and 1982 by industrial teams under the
technical direction of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). Designs are available for a 46-MWe pilot OTEC plant ship that would produce 15 metric tons per day of liquid hydrogen (or 140 metric tons per day of liquid ammonia) in a
conventional chemical plant installed on the OTEC vessel. It would use the same synthesis process that produces ammonia on land but would eliminate the costly methane-reforming step of that process.An APL conceptual design is available for a 365-MWe
commercial OTEC plant ship that would produce 1,100 metric tons per day of liquid ammonia. Used as a motor vehicle fuel, this could replace approximately 150,000 gallons of gasoline. If operating experience confirms the utility of this conceptual design, 2,000
OTEC ammonia plant ships could supply enough ammonia fuel per day to match the total daily mileage of all the automobiles presently in the United States. If these plant ships were distributed uniformly over the tropical ocean, an area of about 60 million square
kilometers, they would be spaced 175 kilometers apart. A history of successOTECs potential for providing the United States with an alternative to imported oil was recognized in 1974 after the Organi zation of PetroleumExporting Countries imposed its oil
embargo. Between 1975 and 1982, DOE spent approximately $260 million on OTEC R&D in a detailed analysis of OTEC technical feasibility. Foreign studies also contributed to our information about OTEC. The findings included:Technical feasibility. Tests and
demonstrations at reasonable scale validated the power cycle performance; the cold water pipe design, construction, and deployment; the OTEC plant ships ability to withstand l00-year storms (storms of an intensity that occurs, on average, once in 100 years); the
durability of its materials; and methods for controlling biofouling of the heat exchangers. Successful at-sea tests of a complete OTEC system(Mini-OTEC), including a 2,200-foot cold water pipe, were
conducted with private funding near Kailea-Kona, Hawaii, in 1979. The programemployed a Navy scow as a platform and used off-the-shelf components supplied by industrial partners in the venture. In four months of operation, Mini -OTEC
generated 50 kilowatts-electric of gross power, which confirmed the engineering predictions. It demonstrated total system feasibility at reduced scale and was the first demonstration of OTEC net power
generation.A heat-exchanger test vessel, OTEC-1, was deployed with DOE funding in 1980 and satisfactorily demonstrated projected heat-exchanger performance, water-ducting, and biofouling control at a 1-MWe scale. These results provided the scientific
justification for the planned next step-a 40-MWe pilot plant demonstration.Environmental effects. Effects of the environment on OTEC plant ship operations and effects of OTEC on ocean ecology were studied and analyzed. Hurricanes do
not occur near the equator where OTEC plant ships will be deployed. Small-scale water-tunnel tests indicated that the pilot plant ship and cold water pipe can
withstand equatorial 100-year-storm conditions with a good safety margin. A commercial 365-MWe OTEC ammonia plant ship would be about the size of a large oil tanker and would be less affected by waves and current than was the pilot plant.OTEC uses large
volumes of warmand cold water that pass through fish barriers to the heat exchangers and are mixed and discharged at the bottom of the ship. The discharged waters are denser than the surface ocean waters, so they descend to a depth of about 500 meters, there
spreading laterally to forma disk where the density of the discharged plume matches that of the ambient ocean water. Diffusi on of heat from this layer to the surface is negligible for one plant ship. But effects on the surface layer could become detectable and
possibly significant if large numbers of plant ships were deployed close together, or if the cold nutrient-rich water discharged were deliberately mixed into the surface layer. This option could lead to a substantial increase in marine life, like to that occurring off Peru
where upwelling brings nutrient-rich cold water to the surface.Plant ship spacing would have to be chosen on the basis of an acceptable tradeoff between total power delivery and environmental impact. If one-tenth of one percent of the incident solar energy
were converted to electricity, one square kilometer of ocean would generate 0.2 MWe of net electric power. Roughly 1,800 square kilometers could supply solar heat for continuous operation of a 365-MWe OTEC plant. This would mean an average spacing between
ships of 45 kilometers, and the fuel produced would be equivalent to 14 times the total U.S. gasoline energy use in 1996. OTEC ammonia fuel commercial development. Tests of ammonia fuel (shown in bench tests to have an octane number of 130) in a four-
cylinder Toyota engine have demonstrated performance at an optimum fuel-air ratio, in accord with theoretical predictions. Early work indicated that some hydrogen, which could be supplied by partial dissociation of the ammonia entering the engine or by other
means, would be needed in an ammonia-fueled internal combustion engine to achieve adequate performance over the desired operating range. The tests show that operation at slightly fuel-rich conditions reduces nitrogen oxide emissions to one-tenth the
concentration observed in todays automobiles. Further work to develop OTEC fuels could lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions, air
pollution, and oil imports. The physical properties of ammonia are nearly the same as those of liquid propane, so the current procedures established for gas-tight safe handling and storage of liquid propane in automobiles and filling stations are applicable to
ammonia. Ammonia can become a practical motor vehicle fuel, but much more engine R&D and storage and delivery design work will be necessary to define the total system requirements and costs for widespread ammonia car operations. Ammonia is a major
industrial chemical presently made by partial oxidation (reforming) of natural gas. Liquid ammonia is produced and distributed safely worldwide by tankers, pipelines, and trucks in quantities exceeding 100 million metric tons per year. Commercial experience in
producing, storing, and transporting liquid ammonia (and hydrogen) suggest that adherence to existing regulations will ensure safe operations. Most ammonia is used as
fertilizer and is commonly sprayed directly on the soil by individual farmers. It has a penetrating odor and is toxic in high concentrations but does not burn or explode at atmospheric pressure. No serious health-related problems or explosive hazards have been
experienced in its use. Competitiveness and financing. OTEC systems are low technology. Operating temperatures and pressures are the same as those in household air conditioners. About two-thirds of the required OTEC systemcomponents and subsystems are
commercially available. Another 10 to 15 percent need to be scaled up and optimized for OTEC use, which adds some cost unpredictability. Only the cold water pipe construction, platformattachment, and deployment will require new types of equipment and
procedures. If we assign 100 percent cost uncertainty to these items, the overall investment uncertainty of the OTEC system is around 15 to 25 percent. This relatively low uncertainty permits cost estimates to be made with reasonable confidence. The ultimate
sales price of fuel fromOTEC plant ships depends on the cost to amortize plant investment (including construction costs) over plant life, plus operation and maintenance costs, including shipping to consumers. For a range of scenarios, the cost of OTEC-ammonia
delivered to U.S. ports is estimated to vary from$0.30 to $0.60 per gallon (in 1995 dollars). Adjusting for the lower mileage per gallon of ammonia, this would be equivalent to gasoline costing $0.80 to $1.60 per gallon. These estimates are strongly dependent on
assumed interest rates, amortization times, and whether tax credits and other subsidies that are available to gasoline users would be available to ammonia producers as well. In the future, gasoline prices are expected to increase because of resource depletion. But
with improved technology and expanded production, prices for ammonia produced by OTEC should decrease. Finishing the jobThe seven-year DOE R&D program provided positive
answers to doubts about OTEC. It demonstrated at a reasonable scale that the OTEC concept for ocean energy production is technically feasible. The next step was to have been construction of a 40-MWe (nominal) pilot plant
that would provide firm cost and engineering data for the design of full-scale OTEC plant ships. Planned funding for this step was canceled in 1982 when the Reagan administration, with different energy priorities from those of the Carter administration, took office.
Since 1982, government support of OTEC development has been undercut further by the drop in oil prices that has reduced publi c fears of an oil shortage and its economic consequences, as well as by the opposition of vested interests that are committed to
conventional energy resources. Lack of support for OTEC research is part of a general lack of interest in energy alternatives designed to address fundamental problems that will not become critical for several decades. If and when the need for measures to forestall
energy shortages and/or severe environmental effects frompresent energy sources becomes evident, the long lead times needed for the costly transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy resources may prevent action frombeing taken in time to be effective.
It is prudent to renew OTEC R&D now. There are questions about OTEC that cannot be answered without further development and testing: the effects of scale-ups on projected costs, required
spacing of a network of OTEC plant ships to satisfy environmental restrictions, logistical problems associated with the widespread use of ammonia as a transportation fuel, and requirements for good performance in automobile and other combustion systems.The
date by which OTEC might be expected to become commercially viable is too far off to attract entrepreneurs. In view of the substantial capital cost of plant ship construction, government support is
essential. At this stage, we cannot promise that OTEC will be commercially viable. But it is certainly promising enough to justify a substantial federal research i nvestment. We believe that further work to develop OTEC fuels could lead, by the
middle of the next century, to significant reductions in carbon emissions, air pollution, and oil imports. The nation should be willing to make a small investment in designing, building, and evaluating a 45-MWe OTEC plant ship to demonstrate the feasibility and
economics of the concept on a scale large enough to permit confident construction and operation of full-scale commercial OTEC plant ships. The United States should begin a programthat includes the following features: Identify potential suppliers of OTEC
systems and components, and bring up to date the predictions of their costs and performance. The survey should include new high-performance OTEC heat-exchanger options that have been demonstrated in R&D programs. Conduct systems engineering studies
to define a program with a long-range goal of OTEC ammonia plant ship development and commercialization that could attract government and industry support. We recommend an introductory program, lasting a few years, that will test attractive options with cost-
shared funding. It would include analysis and experimental programs to provide firm data for heat-exchanger optimization (including designs, materials, and costs) and the hydrodynamics of OTEC water inlet and exhaust trajectories, including their interactions with
surface and subsurface water flows and temperatures. Define potential roles of government and industry in initiating and conducting the development program. Determine a schedule and funding plan for OTEC
development that would make it possible to have significant OTEC commercial operation by the year 2050.

Federal funding is keycreating early adaption plants signals to the industry
the technology is effective and solves current investment gapsfederal
development is necessary to develop a regulatory scheme
Meyer, Cooper and Varley 2011(Laurie, Dennis, and Robert, Lockhheed Martin,
September, "Are We There Yet? A Developer's Roadmap to OTEC Commercialization",
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Road-to-
Commercialization-September-2011-_-LM.pdf)

In 2006, Makai Ocean Engineering was awarded a small business innovative research (SBIR) contract from the Office of Naval Research (ONR) to
investigate the potential for OTEC to produce nationally-significant quantities of hydrogen in at- sea floating plants located in warm, tropical waters.
Realizing the need for larger partners to actually commercialize OTEC, Makai approached Lockheed Martin to renew their previous relationship and
determine if the time was ready for OTEC. And so in 2007, Lockheed Martin resumed our OTEC journey and became a subcontractor to Makai to
support their SBIR. Lockheed Martin separately began to engage with Makai Ocean Engineering and others to collectively review the work that was
done over the decades to commercialize OTEC, a dream kept alive by Joe Van Ryzin, Luis Vega, CB Panchal, Bob Cohen, Jim Anderson, Hans Krock, and
others. Developing the envisioned vast marine-industrial sector supporting affordable commercial OTEC applications (Stage 5) required conducting
Stage 2 proofs of concepts for any new technology, deploying a pilot facility (Stage 3), and building the first commercial plant (Stage 4). We developed a
vision, commercialization roadmap, and technology strategy focused on what we saw as the primary risks and hurdles to
scaling OTEC to utility applications. Our vision (Fig. 4) began with the need to field an integrated pilot plant to enable our
move to Stage 4 - commercial market entre to electric utilities in locations with existing high costs of electricity. We expect that as
more plants are fielded, we will move down the learning curve and see decreasing unit costs, eventually enabling
entre to lower cost electricity markets. Initial market entree requires larger plants due to OTEC economics. Smaller plants may eventually become
affordable, but in the near future, small plants will need to be subsidized. As electricity generation becomes established and progress is made toward
Stage 5, larger OTEC plants grazing in the open oceans will be developed to produce energy carriers and/or synthetic fuels. These plants will have the
potential to begin to offset transportation fluids. Achieving our vision required us to understand technology solutions and develop realistic cost and
schedule estimates to determine whether OTEC commercialization could yet be realized. Based on assessments, we developed our commercialization
roadmap to provide another view of our commercialization plan (Fig. 5). Though much technology and system work exists, much has also changed since
the 1970s. We identified a number of technology development/ demonstration tasks to reduce remaining risk. However, successful risk
reduction is not the only barrier for commercialization. We needed to address the Valley-of- Death, finding funds to
build a pilot facility large enough to convince investors and Lockheed Martin management we could be
successful at commercial utility scales. We believe an integrated megawatt scale pilot plant is still
needed to obtain the large amounts of private financing needed for commercial, utility scale OTEC plants. Our early focus was on a 10 megawatt
(MW) floating design. We viewed scaling 10 MW up to an initial commercial 100 MW plant as a reasonable step with acceptable risk for the private
financing requirements. The pilot plant serves several purposes and addresses multiple stakeholder concerns. It
provides an integrated system demonstration of the technology. When connected to a local grid, it provides the
utility with the opportunity to ensure baseload OTEC power performs as expected. The pilot plant allows measurement of
environmental parameters so the regulatory agencies can understand and assess how larger, commercial plants will operate. The pilot plant will also
enable NOAA, the federal agency with OTEC licensing authority, to fine tune their regulatory process. The pilot project will validate cost and schedule
plans so both industry and financial communities can extrapolate results to commercial projects. Since no commercial OTEC plants are in operation
today, the pilot plant will provide the opportunity to validate estimate of operations & maintenance (O&M) requirements. Finally, a pilot plant will
provide public relations and community education opportunities about this new renewable resource. We developed sufficient confidence and
optimism to invest in tasks that would refine our design. Along the way, we picked up new friends, companies that provided key skills and credibility
to make real progress. Complementing our Lockheed Martin / Makai Ocean Engineering team (Fig. 6), weve added companies with expertise in the
offshore industry, naval architecture, ocean engineering, OTEC systems, composites, and the environment. The primary technical challenges included
heat exchanger optimization, affordable and survivable cold water pipes at 10m+ diameter and 1km length, stable and affordable ocean platform
concepts, and affordable and efficient system designs. We invested in heat exchanger design efforts to address performance, corrosion, and
producibility (Fig. 7). A companion test program focused on understanding the behavior of candidate alloys in both warm and cold seawater was
devised by Makai. Today we have over a year of exposure for hundreds of samples. To confirm performance estimates for our HX designs, we have
conducted testing at both small scale (laboratory) (Fig. 8) and large scale at NELHA (Fig. 9) using multiple working fluids and a range of representative
environmental operating conditions. A separate paper at this conference addresses more details. We identified a survivable, lower cost composite cold
water pipe solution that could be fabricated on the platform to reduce deployment challenges (Fig. 10). Teamed with the DoE, we validated the
composite pipe fabrication approach and key elements of the composite tooling (Fig. 11). Teamed with the USN, our team addressed the challenging
interfaces between that composite pipe and the steel platform structure (Fig. 12). Future plans include integration of the full pipe fabrication system
for a full scale land based demonstration. We surveyed the offshore industry to understand the state of the art in large stable floating structures for
offshore deepwater applications (Fig. 13). As one might expect, because of the progress in the offshore oil and gas industry moving into deeper and
deeper operational environments, many of what were challenges in the 1980s are no longer viewed by the industry
as technology challenges today. However, these deepwater technologies have been exquisitely engineered to address oil and gas challenges which
dont necessarily plague OTEC and hence are not necessarily cost optimized for our application. Our team has worked hard to understand the
applicability of existing offshore standards in the ultimate design of an OTEC system, and we have begun working with certification and classification
experts focused on safety of operations as well as NOAA and environmental experts to ensure our design addresses key ecological concerns. III. ARE WE
THERE YET ? Were making progress. Capital cost is the primary challenge. Since we believe private financing will require a
substantial demonstration to show performance, validate environmental predictions, confirm cost and schedule
estimates, and collect operational data our focus has been on a pilot plant. But we face a conundrum a pilot plant will be a small OTEC plant;
small OTEC plants arent economic. We have therefore focused on federal support for a pilot plant program.
Unfortunately, todays budget woes challenge the ability of the federal government to support a substantial demonstration.

Reactivating the line item for OTEC R & D allows the US to take advantage of
the expertise and technical know-how acquired during previous R & D efforts.
Robert Cohen, specialist in ocean thermal energy since 1973, when he
organized the initial federal ocean thermal R&D program, 2008
(Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Cornell University, Proposal to Reactivate the DOE
Ocean Thermal Energy R&D Program, April 10,
http://push.pickensplan.com/forum/topic/show?id=2187034:Topic:201120 Accessed 7/12/14)
This is to propose that the DOE Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) R&D program be reactivated as a line item within the overall
DOE ocean energy/water power R&D program. OTECunlike most renewable energy sourcesis a baseload (continuous) source of electricity, and it
has the potential to supply a substantial portion of global energy needs. Indeed, it could become the largest single source of renewable
energy. From 1972 to about 1995, U.S. OTEC R&D achieved considerable progress, but OTEC technology fell
short of commercialization. Toward that goal, a total of about $250 million was expended, largely to fund studies by industry on OTEC systems and
subsystems. [NREL played a key part in that activity, on behalf of DOE, through contracting for, managing, and conducting much of that research.] The DOE OTEC
R&D effort was successful, in that 1) no demonstrable show-stoppers were encountered, and 2) industrial studies concluded that OTEC technology had
good prospects for becoming technically and economically viable. Currently, a large professional team at Lockheed Martin funded
internally -- is again studying the OTEC option. After FY81, DOE funding of the ocean thermal energy R&D program waned for no valid reason of which I am aware from a
peak level of about $50 million per year to zero around 1995just as the stage had been set for constructing prototype OTEC plants. Reactivation of DOEs
ocean thermal energy R&D program can benefit from the ample U.S. know-how and expertise derived from this head start, along with
the remarkable technological advances achieved in the meantime, especially in the offshore oil industry. Although harnessing the global ocean thermal
energy resource will in itself not be a panacea for the global energy problem, baseload OTEC-derived electricity has the potential for becoming both a major
contributor of global energy supplies and a major player in mitigating global warming. Hence appropriate development of the
OTEC option on its merits -- ought to be accorded serious, urgent consideration in formulating U.S. energy R&D policy. A draft three-year reactivation budget is attached.