Nuclear Energy 1

[Nuclear energy general] WDW 2k8
Index
Index......................................................................................................................................................... .....1
No new nuclear plants coming now................................................................................... ............................2
Coal bad – particulate matter......................................................................................... ...............................3
Minimal risk of accidents............................................................................................... ................................4
Minimal risk of accidents-Cont’d................................................................................................. ...................5
Nuclear better than wind, water, solar, biomass, geothermal............................................................... .........6
No dependence on fossil fuels with nuclear................................................................................. ..................7
Nuclear is safe for the enviornment................................................................................................... ............8
Nuclear is safe for the environment cont.................................................................................. ...................10
Nuclear waste no problem.................................................................................................... .......................11
No risk of nuclear weapons being manufactured................................................................... ......................12
Transportation of waste is safe...................................................................................... ..............................13
No risk of terrorist attack........................................................................................................ .....................14
Nuclear energy is economically good.......................................................................................................... .15
Nuclear reactors have been proven to withstand earthquakes.............................................. ......................16
No trade off.............................................................................................................................................. ....17
Other countries say yes........................................................................................................... ....................19
Other countries say yes Cont’d......................................................................................................... ...........21
Nuclear energy bad – warming........................................................................................ ............................22
Nuclear energy bad – warming Cont’d..................................................................................... ....................23
Nuclear energy bad – trade off.................................................................................................................... .24
Nuclear energy bad – reactor disasters.................................................................................................. ......25
Nuclear energy bad – terror attacks..................................................................................................... ........26
Nuclear energy bad - death............................................................................................. ............................28
Nuclear energy bad – atomic weapons/waste........................................................................... ...................29
Nuclear energy bad – atomic weapons/waste Cont’d......................................................................... ..........30
Nuclear energy bad – atomic weapons/waste Cont’d......................................................................... ..........32
Nuclear energy bad – expensive............................................................................................... ...................33
Nuclear energy bad –timeframe bad.................................................................................................... ........35
The United States should learn from other countries.................................................................... ...............36
www.ksu.edu/debate
1
No new nuclear plants coming now

Nuclear energy is efficient but the US is not planning on building
any new nuclear plants.
CRAVENS, GWYNETH. JOURNALIST. APRIL 25, 2008. (DISCOVERMAGAZINE.COM, “IS NUCLEAR ENERGY
OUR BEST HOPE”, July 7, 2008, accessed at http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-is-nuclear-energy-
our-best-hope)
According to the Department of Energy, just to maintain nuclear’s 20 percent share of the energy supply,
the United States would need to add three or four new nuclear power plants a year starting in 2015. (There
are 104 nuclear power plants currently in operation in the United States.) But no new nuclear power plants
have been built here in 30 years, partly because of the public’s aversion to nuclear power after the Three
Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Now NRG Energy, based in Princeton, New
Jersey, is sticking its neck out with plans to build two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project
facility near Bay City. The new reactors will be able to steadily generate a total of 2,700 megawatts—
enough to light up 2 million households.
Regulations from the government make it hard for new nuclear

plants to be constructed.
SPENCER, JACK, RESEARCH FELLOW IN NUCLEAR ENERGY, NICK LORIS, RESEARCH ASSISTANT IN THE
THOMAS A. ROE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY STUDIES AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, DECEMBER 3,
2007. (THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, “DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY”, July 7, 2008,
accessed at http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg2087.cfm)
However, investors are averse to the regulatory risk associated with building new plants. The regulatory
burden is extreme and potentially unpredictable. In the past, opponents of nuclear power have
successfully used the regulations to raise construction costs by filing legal challenges, not based on any
underlying safety issue, but simply because they oppose nuclear power. The incentives in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 are needed not because the market has rejected nuclear power, but because the market
has rejected the excessive regulatory risk and costs imposed by the government. When making
investment decisions, investors must consider the massive costs and losses caused by past government
intervention.[11] Until new plants have been constructed and are in operation, thereby proving that
regulatory obstacles have been mitigated both financially and legally, the burden of proof will remain on
government regulators.
Because of the overblown Three Mile Island accident in

1979, there have been no new power plants manufactured
in nearly 3 decades.
Margaret Kriz, august 2007
National Jounal (Washington), “Nuclear Power 2.0”, pg 23-27
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=8&did=1323619501&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType
=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1215562849&clientId=48067
No utility has ordered a new nuclear power plant in the United States in nearly three decades, not since a
1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island facility caused the core of one reactor to melt down.
Even before the crisis, Wall Street had begun losing faith in nuclear power because of massive overruns in
construction costs. After the near-disaster at Three Mile Island, investors long wanted nothing more to do
with nuclear energy-even though the nation's 104 commercial nuclear reactors remain the source of 20
percent of the electricity produced in the United States.
Now nuclear energy's supporters are hailing the anticipated deluge of power-plant proposals as the
beginning of a nuclear renaissance in this country. "I don't want to be too optimistic, but it's been a long
time since we've seen all the stars line up in the direction that says, 'Let's go build new nuclear plants,'"
said Andrew Kadak, professor of nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "That's
what's happening here."
www.ksu.edu/debate
2
Coal bad – particulate matter

24 thousand a year die from coal emissions
our-best-hope)
The United States alone pumped the equivalent of nearly 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere in 2005. More than 2 billion tons of that came from electricity generation—not surprising,
considering that we burn fossil fuels for 70 percent of our electricity. About half of all our electricity comes
from more than 500 coal-fired plants. Besides contributing to global warming, their pollution has a serious
health impact. Burning coal releases fine particulates that kill 24,000 Americans annually and cause
hundreds of thousands of cases of lung and heart problems.
Nuclear energy waste is small compared to coal combustion

waste.
our-best-hope)
What about the waste? Uranium is an extremely dense source of energy, and the volume of waste is
therefore small. According to David Bradish, a data analyst at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear fuel
pellet measures 0.07 cubic inch (about the size of your fingertip) and contains the energy equivalent of
1,780 pounds of coal. The nation’s 104 reactors generate roughly 800 billion kilowatt-hours a year and
contribute about 2,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel a year. By contrast, U.S. coal combustion produces some
100 million tons of toxic material annually.
www.ksu.edu/debate
3
Minimal risk of accidents

New reactor cores take away big risk of accidents.
our-best-hope)
Public concerns about nuclear power have traditionally centered on two issues: the risk of widespread
radioactive fallout from an accident and the hazards of nuclear waste. (Since 9/11, security risk has
emerged as a third major worry.) My research shows such fears are unfounded. A Chernobyl cannot happen
here—a survey by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established that our reactors are free of the
design flaws that permitted Chernobyl to explode, and in the United States a typical reactor core is
surrounded by multiple enclosures to block the escape of radioactive material even in the event of an
accident. Chernobyl had no such containment.
The new reactor cores have a special safety feature that prevents
accidents.
our-best-hope)
Our worst commercial reactor accident, at Three Mile Island 2, was said to be successfully contained
despite a partial meltdown, according to the NRC’s investigation. A minute quantity of radioactive gas was
intentionally vented from the reactor building, but several independent, peer-reviewed studies have not
ascertained any health effects attributable to exposure. Since then, U.S. regulations have instituted many
additional safety measures. The reactors that will be used by NRG in the South Texas Project are of a type
dubbed the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (pdf), the latest iteration of a thoroughly vetted design that
has been safely used for a decades, the light water reactor. These reactors have the intriguing feature that
the water used to cool the core and run the generating turbine is also essential to maintaining a nuclear
chain reaction. Briefly, fissioning atoms in the nuclear reactor’s fuel emit neutrons that are traveling too
fast to efficiently cause other atoms to fission. The water slows the neutrons, allowing the chain reaction to
continue at a steady pace. In case of an accident, multiple systems would keep cooling water flowing to
the core, and control rods would quickly drop, automatically shutting down the nuclear reactions.
Because they don’t do their own research, opponents’ judgments

on the safety of nuclear energy is skewed. Scientists, engineers,
and even Congress find the probability of accidents small.
SHAFFER C, HOWARD. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, B.S. IN ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING 1962—DUKE, M.S. IN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING 1976—MIT, 2005. (LEXIS NEXIS, “THE
DOWNSIDE OF NUCLEAR POWER – BY AN ADVOCATE”, July 8, 2008, lexis)
P33 Value judgments arise from within the individual. Congress makes the majority value judgments in our
political system--called National Policy. Based on still valid scientific information, Congress decided long
ago that nuclear power should be used, n21 and has yet to change that decision, despite efforts of the
minority that still opposes nuclear power. P34 In our political system, a minority can continue to assert its
viewpoint for as long as it chooses. Occasionally, after years or decades, the majority opinion does change,
and this is precisely what the opponents hope to obtain. P35 Rather than say they have a different value
judgment, the Opponents attack nuclear power on scientific and technical grounds, since this is the "chink
in the armor" left open by the licensing process. n22 The Opponents do not perform independent scientific
and engineering research, but examine that of the industry, available through the licensing process. They
pick what they think are weak points and challenge them in every possible venue. n23 What the Opponents
ignore is that the scientific approach takes a step beyond considering and analyzing the results of all
possible scenarios, and makes a judgment about the likelihood of occurrence of disastrous events.
Reflection reveals that all life involves judgments about odds: Is it safe enough to go to work today?
Snowing? How badly? Wait a while? For example, an obvious consensus on the odds of a large accident is
www.ksu.edu/debate
4
the location of airports in or near cities around the world. Planes have crashed into cities, but rarely. No
one says it cannot happen again. Likewise, no advocate of nuclear power has ever said severe accidents
can never happen. But they judge the odds against severe accidents to be so great that very infrequent
accidents make nuclear power's use acceptable when compared to its alternatives.P36 On this basis,
Congress, the scientific and engineering community, and the nuclear industry itself disagree with the
Opponents. The former believe that radiation and radioactivity are safe enough. They judge that nuclear
power plants and the fuel cycle are economical, necessary, and safe enough from terrorist attacks. n24
Minimal risk of accidents-Cont’d

Incidents at Davis-Besse, Vermont Yankee, and Three Mile Island
demonstrate that nuclear power is safe.
Perhaps the greatest myths surrounding nuclear power concern the consequences of past accidents and
their association with current risks. All of these myths depend on a basic construct of flawed logic and
misrepresentations that is riddled with logical and factual errors. First, the consequences of Chernobyl are
overblown to invoke general fear of nuclear power. Next, the Three Mile Island accident is falsely equated
with Chernobyl to create the illusion of danger at home. Finally, any accident, no matter how minor, is
portrayed as being ever so close to another nuclear catastrophe to demonstrate the dangers of new
nuclear power. This myth can be dispelled outright simply by revisiting the real consequences of Chernobyl
and Three Mile Island in terms of actual fatalities. Although any loss of life is a tragedy, a more realistic
presentation of the facts would use these accidents to demonstrate the inherent safety of nuclear power.
Chernobyl was the result of human error and poor design. Of the fewer than 50 fatalities,[12] most were
rescue workers who unknowingly entered contaminated areas without being informed of the danger. The
World Heath Organization says that up to 4,000 fatalities could ultimately result from Chernobyl-related
cancers, but this has not yet happened. The primary health effect was a spike in thyroid cancer among
children, with 4,000-5,000 children diagnosed with the cancer between 1992 and 2002. Of these, 15
children died, but 99 percent of cases were resolved favorably. No clear evidence indicates any increase in
other cancers among the most heavily affected populations. Of course, this does not mean that cancers
could not increase at some future date. Interestingly, the World Health Organization has also identified a
condition called "paralyzing fatalism," which is caused by "persistent myths and misperceptions about the
threat of radiation."[13] In other words, the propagation of ignorance by anti-nuclear activists has caused
more harm to the affected populations than has the radioactive fallout from the actual accident. The most
serious accident in U.S. history involved the partial meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island, but no
deaths or injuries resulted. The local population of 2 million people received an average estimated dose of
about 1 millirem--insignificant compared to the 100-125 millirems that each person receives annually from
naturally occurring background radiation in the area.[14] Other incidents have occurred since then, and all
have been resolved safely. For example, safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head at the
Davis-Besse plant in Ohio. Although only an inch of steel cladding prevented the hole from opening, the
NRC found that the plant could have operated another 13 months and that the steel cladding could have
withstood pressures 125 percent above normal operations.[15] A partial cooling tower collapse at the
Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the Davis- Besse incident but is nonetheless presented by
activists as evidence of the potential risks posed by power reactors. Non-radioactive water was spilled in
the collapse, but no radiation was released.
www.ksu.edu/debate
5
Nuclear better than wind, water, solar,

biomass, geothermal
Nuclear energy has advantages over wind, water, and biomass.
our-best-hope)
Lovelock explained that his decision to endorse nuclear power was motivated by his fear of the
consequences of global warming and by reports of increasing fossil-fuel emissions that drive the warming.
Jesse Ausubel, head of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, recently echoed
Lovelock’s sentiment. “As a green, I care intensely about land-sparing, about leaving land for nature,” he
wrote. “To reach the scale at which they would contribute importantly to meeting global energy demand,
renewable sources of energy such as wind, water, and biomass cause serious environmental harm.
Measuring renewables in watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its
competitors.” All of this has led several other prominent environmentalists to publicly favor new nuclear
plants. I had a similar change of heart. For years I opposed nuclear power, but while I was researching my
book Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, my views completely turned around.
Only nuclear energy can produce the amount of energy needed to

meet increasing demands for energy. Wind, solar, and geothermal
energy can’t.
our-best-hope)
America’s electricity demand is expected to increase by almost 50 percent by 2030, according to the
Department of Energy. Unfortunately, renewable energy sources, such as the wind and sun, are highly
unlikely to meet that need. Wind and solar installations today supply less than 1 percent of electricity in
the United States, do so intermittently, and are decades away from providing more than a small boost to
the electric grid. “To meet the 2005 U.S. electricity demand of about 4 million megawatt-hours with
around-the-clock wind would have required wind farms covering over 780,000 square kilometers,” Ausubel
notes. For context, 780,000 square kilometers (301,000 square miles) is greater than the area of Texas.
6
Solar power fares badly too, in Ausubel’s analysis: “The amount of energy generated in [one quart] of the
www.ksu.edu/debate
core of a nuclear reactor requires [2.5 acres] of solar cells.” Geothermal power also is decades away from
making a significant contribution to America’s electricity budget.
No dependence on fossil fuels with nuclear

Problems continue when alternative energy could be used but
fossil fuel made energy is used instead.
What makes nuclear energy so exciting from an environmental standpoint is not the pollution that it has
prevented in the past, but the potential for enormous savings in the future. Ground transportation is a
favorite target of the environmental community, and the members of this community are correct insofar as
America's transportation choices are a primary source of the nation's dependence on and demand for fossil
fuels. Plug-in electric hybrid cars, which require significant development to achieve subsidy-free market
viability, are looked upon as a potential solution to the problem. Yet if the electricity comes from a fossil-
fuel power plant, the pollution is simply transferred from a mobile energy source to a fixed one, while the
problem is solved if the electricity comes from an emissions-free nuclear plant.
Nuclear energy can make America independent of foreign energy

sources.
However, they ignore the reality that nuclear technology is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally
friendly energy source that can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric
emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The arguments that
www.ksu.edu/debate
7
they used three decades ago in their attempt to kill the nuclear industry were wrong then, and they are
even more wrong today. A look at the facts shows that their information is either incorrect or irrelevant.
Nuclear is safe for the enviornment

Nuclear power plants are empirically proven to reduce carbon
emissions.
The United States has not built a new commercial nuclear reactor in over 30 years, but the 104 plants
operating today prevented the release of 681.9 million metric tons of CO2 in 2005, which is comparable to
taking 96 percent of cars off the roads.[2] If CO2 is the problem, emissions-free nuclear power must be part
of the solution.
Nuclear power plants do emit some radiation, but the amounts are
environmentally insignificant and pose no threat.
This myth relies on taking facts completely out of context. By exploiting public fears of anything
radioactive and not educating the public about the true nature of radiation and radiation exposure, anti-
8
nuclear activists can easily portray any radioactive emissions as a reason to stop nuclear power. However,
www.ksu.edu/debate
when radiation is put into the proper context, the safety of nuclear power plants is clear. Nuclear power
plants do emit some radiation, but the amounts are environmentally insignificant and pose no threat.
These emissions fall well below the legal safety limit sanctioned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). Indeed, less than 1 percent of the public's exposure to radiation comes from nuclear power plants.
The average American is exposed to 360 millirem of radiation a year.[4] About 83 percent (300 millirem) of
this annual radiation dose comes from natural sources, such as cosmic rays, uranium in the Earth's crust,
and radon gas in the atmosphere. Most of the rest comes from medical procedures such as X-rays, and
about 3 percent (11 millirem) comes from consumer products.[5] The Department of Energy reports that
living near a nuclear power plant exposes a person to 1 millirem of radiation a year.[6] By comparison, an
airline passenger who flies from New York to Los Angeles receives 2.5 millirem.[7] As Chart 1 illustrates,
radiation exposure is an unavoidable reality of everyday life, and radiation exposure from living near a
nuclear power plant is insignificant.
Nuclear power plants produce almost no atmospheric emissions.

Given that nuclear fission does not produce atmospheric emissions, NukeFree's carbon dioxide (CO2) witch-
hunt focuses on other, emissions-producing activities surrounding nuclear power, such as uranium mining
and plant construction. Finding fault with nuclear energy on the basis of these indirect emissions simply
holds no merit. Whether the activists like it or not, the world runs on fossil fuel. Until the nation changes its
energy profile--which can be done with nuclear energy--almost any activity, even building windmills, will
result in CO2 emissions.
Being less harmful than fossil fuels, many countries turn to

Nuclear Energy.
Nicolas Loris (Research Assistant)&Jack Spencer(a research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation) july 2, 2008 “Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn
From Other Nations” http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977.cfm
Nuclear energy is attractive to many countries because of its impeccable environmental record. Burning
fossil fuels releases an abundance of elements into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy, to the contrary, fully
contains all of its byproduct in the form of used nuclear fuel. Such waste is safely managed throughout the
world in countries like France, Finland, and Japan.
Nations across the world that are struggling to reconcile mandates to reduce carbon dioxide emissions with
the need to maintain economic competitiveness are looking to nuclear technology. Under the new
European Union energy plan, by 2020 Finland will be forced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20
percent, increase renewable energy by 20 percent, and increase efficiency by 20 percent by 2020. It has
turned to nuclear energy to meet these goals.
www.ksu.edu/debate
9
Nuclear is safe for the environment cont.

Environmentalists are changing their minds in favor of nuclear
energy.
Jason Mark (editor of Earth island Journal, a publication of the environmental group Earth Island Institute),
Keith Goetzman, jan/feb 2008
Utne, pg 56-63, “ATOMIC DREAMS”
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=1413754721&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&
VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1215463845&clientId=48067
Today the attitude in the environmental movement toward nuclear power may be changing. Atomic
energy, once the bête noir of the movement, is receiving a second look from many dedicated ecologists
who are suggesting that, in a world threatened by climate change, splitting the atom may be preferable to
burning the carbon. Many people are beginning to wonder: Can nuclear power be green?
Nuclear industry officials, who have long sought to resuscitate their flagging businesses, are eagerly
fueling the debate as they seek to position their reactors as a solution to global warming. Nuclear power
promoters are feeling more bullish than they have in years. Utilities have filed applications with federal
regulators for 32 new atomic reactors, according to the Nuclear Information and Research Service.
The possibility of a nuclear power renaissance is causing strains in the environmental movement as
organizations and individuals grapple with the pros and cons of using nuclear power to check carbon
emissions. A number of prominent environmentalists-among them Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart
Brand, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jared Diamond, and Gaia-theory promoter James Lovelock-have come
out in favor of atomic energy as a response to climate change. Among mainline U.S. environmental groups,
there is near unanimity that nuclear power remains as bad an idea today as it was during the heyday of
the Diablo Canyon protests. But at the grassroots level, opinion is split. As one green blogger wrote: "We
environmentalists must rethink our opposition to nuclear power. Those who have opposed the building of
new nuclear power plants in the United States over the past 20 years have actually forced the use of a
filthy alternative-coal combustion-that releases millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
Carbon emissions can be met with nuclear power and when the
facts are studied nuclear is the best choice.
"If you're serious about carbon emissions, you have to be serious about nuclear power," says Craig Nesbit,
a spokesman for Exelon Corp., a Chicago-based company that plans to apply for a license to build new
reactors. "You can't meet carbon goals without nuclear power. It cannot be done. There is no other
technology that can do what nuclear does: produce large amounts of electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year, with no carbon emissions."
To help make this argument more compelling, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry group, gave
public relations firm Hill & Knowlton an $8 million contract to reframe the issue in the media. The PR
consultants manage the NEI's Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and enlisted former U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman and Greenpeace cofounder (and corporate consultant)
Patrick Moore to chair it. Hill & Knowlton helped Moore and Whitman disseminate opinion essays that
ignited a torrent of other media stories.
Moore has been an especially effective voice for the nuclear industry. By highlighting his rabble-rousing
days with Greenpeace, Moore has portrayed his embrace of nuclear power as a road-to-Damascus-style
conversion. "Yes, I was an opponent of nuclear energy all through my Greenpeace years," Moore says. "But
when I do the math, it's very clear to me that renewables can't do the job themselves, and that's why
nuclear has to be part of the mix. As an environmentalist, I choose nuclear."
www.ksu.edu/debate
10
Nuclear waste no problem

The nuclear industry solved the nuclear waste problem decades
ago.
Spent nuclear fuel can be removed from the reactor, reprocessed to separate unused fuel, and then used
again. The remaining waste could then be placed in either interim or long-term storage, such as in the
Yucca Mountain repository. France and other countries carry out some version of this process safely every
day. Furthermore, technology advances could yield greater efficiencies and improve the process. The
argument that there is no solution to the waste problem is simply wrong.
Relying on the Yucca Mountain repository won’t be a problem if we

recycle the waste.
"Closing the fuel cycle" by reprocessing or recycling spent fuel would enable the U.S. to move away,
finally, from relying so heavily on the proposed Yucca Mountain repository for the success of its nuclear
program. This would allow for a more reasonable mixed approach to nuclear waste, which would likely
include some combination of Yucca Mountain, interim storage, recycling, and new technologies.
Regrettably, the federal government banned the recycling of spent fuel from commercial U.S. reactors in
1977, and the nation has practiced a virtual moratorium on the process ever since.[3]
www.ksu.edu/debate
11
No risk of nuclear weapons being

manufactured
The claim that nuclear power will result in nuclear proliferation is
irrelevant in the United States.
This myth relies on creating an illusion of cause and effect. This is why so much anti-nuclear propaganda
focuses on trying to equate nuclear weapons with civilian nuclear power. Once such a spurious relationship
is established, anti-nuclear activists can mix and match causes and effects without regard for the facts.
Furthermore, this "argument" is clearly irrelevant inside the United States. As a matter of policy, the United
States already has too many nuclear weapons and is disassembling them at a historic pace, so arguing
that expanding commercial nuclear activity in the United States would somehow lead to weapons
proliferation is disingenuous. The same would hold true for any other state with nuclear weapons.
Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is wholly different from using

nuclear power to produce electricity.
As for states without nuclear weapons, the problem is more complex than simply arguing that access to
peaceful nuclear power will lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons require highly enriched
uranium or plutonium, and producing either material requires a sophisticated infrastructure. While most
countries could certainly develop the capabilities needed to produce these materials, the vast majority
clearly have no intention of doing so. For start-up nuclear powers, the preferred method of acquiring
weapons-grade material domestically is to enrich uranium, not to separate plutonium from spent nuclear
fuel. Uranium enrichment is completely separate from nuclear power production. Furthermore, nothing
stops countries from developing a nuclear weapons capability, as demonstrated by North Korea and Iran. If
proliferation is the concern, then proper oversight is the answer, not stifling a distantly related industry.
www.ksu.edu/debate
12
Transportation of waste is safe

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other agencies have
strict rules and precautions when transporting used materials.
The NRC and other regulatory agencies around the world take the strictest precautions when dealing with
spent nuclear fuel. The NRC outlines six key components for safeguarding nuclear materials in transit:
1. Use of NRC-certified, structurally rugged overpacks and canisters. Fuel within canisters is dense and
in a solid form, not readily dispersible as respirable particles.
2. Advance planning and coordination with local law enforcement along approved routes.
3. Protection of information about schedules.
4. Regular communication between transports and control centers.
5. Armed escorts within heavily populated areas.
6. Vehicle immobility measures to prevent movement of a hijacked shipment before response forces
arrive.[10]
It is empirically proven that there are no unacceptable risks for

people when transporting nuclear materials.
A staggering amount of evidence directly refutes this myth. Nuclear waste has been transported on roads
and railways worldwide for years without a significant incident. Indeed, more than 20 million packages with
radioactive materials are transported globally each year--3 million of them in the United States. Since
1971, more than 20,000 shipments of spent fuel and high-level waste have been transported more than 18
million miles without incident.[9] Transportation of radioactive materials is just not a problem.
It is empirically proven that there are no unacceptable risks for

people when transporting nuclear materials.
www.ksu.edu/debate
13
A staggering amount of evidence directly refutes this myth. Nuclear waste has been transported on roads
and railways worldwide for years without a significant incident. Indeed, more than 20 million packages with
radioactive materials are transported globally each year--3 million of them in the United States. Since
1971, more than 20,000 shipments of spent fuel and high-level waste have been transported more than 18
million miles without incident.[9] Transportation of radioactive materials is just not a problem.
No risk of terrorist attack

Nuclear reactors are designed to withstand the impact of airborne
objects like passenger airplanes, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has increased security at U.S. nuclear power plants
and has instituted other safeguards.
A successful terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would
attacks on schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to
deny society access to any of these critical assets. The United States has 104 commercial nuclear power
plants, and there are 446 worldwide. Not one has fallen victim to a successful terrorist attack. Certainly,
history should not beget complacency, especially when the stakes are so high. However, the NRC has
heightened security and increased safeguards on site to deal with the threat of terrorism. A deliberate or
accidental airplane crash into a reactor is often cited as a threat, but nuclear reactors are structurally
designed to withstand high-impact airborne threats, such as the impact of a large passenger airplane.
Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration has instructed pilots to avoid circling or loitering over
nuclear or electrical power plants, warning them that such actions will make them subject to interrogation
by law enforcement personnel. The right response to terrorist threats to nuclear plants--like threats to
anything else--is not to shut them down, but to secure them, defend them, and prepare to manage the
consequences in the unlikely event that an incident occurs. Allowing the fear of terrorism to obstruct the
significant economic and societal gains from nuclear power is both irrational and unwise.
www.ksu.edu/debate
14
Nuclear energy is economically good

Providing about 20 percent of America’s electricity, nuclear energy
is economically viable and utility companies want to keep their
plants.
Investors are not averse to nuclear power. Utility companies with nuclear experience have sought to
purchase existing plants, are upgrading their existing power plants, and are extending their operating
licenses so that they can produce more energy for a longer time. Indeed, nuclear energy is so economically
viable that it provides about 20 percent of America's electricity despite the incredibly high regulatory
burden.
Competiveness means that countries whom produce nuclear

energy now will reap benefits of cheaper energy later.
Nicolas Loris is(Research Assistant)&Jack Spencer(a research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation) july 2, 2008
“Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other Nations”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977.cfm
Affordable energy is critical to sustaining economic competitiveness in economies with high labor costs,
expensive environmental mandates, and other regulatory expenditures. This is especially true in
economies that depend on energy-intensive activities like manufacturing, such as the Finnish and U.S.
economies. Finland concluded that access to vast quantities of affordable energy should be a top national
priority, and nuclear was an obvious choice.
These countries and others searching to expand their nuclear capacity have an opportunity to fuel their
respective economies through the thousands of jobs, both temporary and permanent, that nuclear energy
www.ksu.edu/debate
15
creates. A global nuclear renaissance will attract construction jobs as well as high-skill engineering jobs to
operate the plants.
Thus, two of the greatest benefits of building more nuclear reactors, if done correctly, will be more jobs
and cleaner, cheaper energy. Countries that do not choose to produce clean energy in a carbon
constrained world will inevitably pay more to produce energy, resulting in higher input costs and higher
prices for consumers on the open market.
As the economic consequences of higher fossil-fuel costs spread to countries that do not produce nuclear
power, many countries will likely increase imports of nuclear electricity from foreign suppliers. While less
expensive and more reliable than other non-nuclear, non-emitting sources, this energy will surely cost
more to import than it would have had to produce it domestically. In the end, the countries that have
barred nuclear power from being produced in their respective countries will ultimately rely on nuclear
power, albeit at a more expensive imported price.
France deems nuclear technologies economical strength

World Nuclear Association, may 2008
“Nuclear Power in France” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
In 2008 a Presidential decree established a top-level council on nuclear energy, underlining the importance
of nuclear technologies to France in terms of economic strength, notably power supply. It will be chaired
by the President and include prime minister as well as cabinet secretaries in charge of energy, foreign
affairs, economy, industry, foreign trade, research and finance. The head of the Atomic Energy Commission
(CEA), the secretary general of national defence and the military chief of staff will also sit on the council.
Nuclear reactors have been proven to

withstand earthquakes
Criteria to protect nuclear plants from earthquake damage has
been set in place and followed. Earthquakes at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
proves.
As for vulnerability to earthquakes, the NRC requires that each nuclear plant meet a set of criteria to
protect against earthquakes.[16] Earthquakes at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site demonstrate the effective-
ness of modern earthquake precautions. In 2004, the site survived without incident an earthquake
measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale. A slightly weaker earthquake in July 2007 caused the plant to suspend
operations, but inspectors have since concluded that the plant's safety features performed properly. While
www.ksu.edu/debate
16
some radiation was released, it was well below dangerous levels and did not come close to approaching
Chernobyl-like levels.[17]
No trade off
Nuclear power does not trade off with other alternative energies.
SHAFFER C, HOWARD. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, B.S. IN ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING 1962—DUKE, M.S. IN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING 1976—MIT, 2005. (LEXIS NEXIS, “THE
DOWNSIDE OF NUCLEAR POWER – BY AN ADVOCATE”, July 8, 2008, lexis)
P37 With regard to economics and sustainability, the Opponents claim that nuclear power requires a "hard
path" philosophy. n25 A "hard path" philosophy is founded on the principles that bigger is better, central
control is preferred, and the environment is unlimited. n26 The belief that nuclear power requires a "hard
path" philosophy appears to be a misunderstanding of the historical antecedents of the whole technology
behind nuclear power, as well as the electric power system. The U.S. was entrenched in the "hard path"
before nuclear power was introduced, using the environment as if it were limitless. This incorrect
association continues, as illustrated by a recent report from Great Britain's Sustainable Development
www.ksu.edu/debate
17
Commission. n27P38 Conclusions about philosophies should be re-examined periodically in the light of
ongoing experience. The last forty-plus years of experience prove that nuclear power does not require a
"hard path" philosophy. n28 Nuclear power coexists with alternatives such as wind and solar power. Several
large power companies own both nuclear power plants and wind farms. n29
www.ksu.edu/debate
18
Other countries say yes

Due to effectiveness of nuclear energy, France, Japan, and
Germany are increasing use.
France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence
after the oil shock of the 1970s. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and
is a net exporter of electricity.[1] Germany, alternatively, decided to phase out nuclear energy for political
reasons and now imports some of this energy.[2]
Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean, safe and reliable form of energy.
Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity; however, Japan is working to
increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017.[3]
Removing restrictions on the construction of new nuclear plants

would help the U.S. meet energy demands.
With the U.S. entertaining the idea of building new nuclear plants, the country can learn a great deal from
other nations further along in the process. Electricity demand is skyrocketing in many parts of the world;
purported human-induced climate change has the entire globe in a panic. Nuclear energy has become a
focal point for countries trying to meet these needs, and some believe that it can provide an economic
boost at the same time. It creates opportunities to electrify portions of the economy that today rely almost
entirely on fossil-fuels, like transportation.
Other countries seem to understand the potential benefits of nuclear power and have either commenced
constructing, or have developed projections for, new nuclear plants. The time has come for the U.S. to stop
squabbling, remove regulatory impediments, and allow nuclear energy to continue helping this country to
meet its growing energy demands.
France is almost entirely fossil fuel independent because of

Nuclear Energy.
World Nuclear Association, may 2008
“Nuclear Power in France” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricité de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe,
supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French
electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person.
Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to
continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.
The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to
expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France
having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with
the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and
achieving greater energy security.
As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost
the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from
electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.
www.ksu.edu/debate
19
Japan is decreasing it’s dependence on oil and increasing nuclear
energy.
World Nuclear Association, June 2008
“Nuclear power in Japan” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html
Despite being the only country to have suffered the devastating effects of nuclear weapons in wartime,
Japan has embraced the peaceful use of nuclear technology to provide a substantial portion of its
electricity. Today, nuclear energy accounts for almost 30% of the country's total electricity production, from
47.5 GWe of capacity (net). There are plans to increase this to 37% in 2009 and 41% by 2017.
In 2006 Japan generated 1073 billion kWh gross, 28% from coal, 23% from gas and 9% from hydro. Per
capita consumption is about 7700 kWh/yr.
As Japan has few natural resources of its own, it depends on imports for some 80% of its primary energy
needs. Initially it was dependent on fossil fuel imports, particularly oil from the Middle East. This
geographical and commodity vulnerability became critical due to the oil shock in 1973. At this time, Japan
already had a growing nuclear industry, with five operating reactors. Re-evaluation of domestic energy
policy resulted in diversification and in particular, a major nuclear construction program. A high priority
was given to reducing the country's dependence on oil imports.
www.ksu.edu/debate
20
Other countries say yes Cont’d

Japan is choosing Nuclear Energy as a part of its 10 year energy
plan
In March 2002 the Japanese government announced that it would rely heavily on nuclear energy to achieve
greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set by the Kyoto Protocol. A 10-year energy plan, submitted in
July 2001 to the Minister of Economy Trade & Industry (METI), was endorsed by cabinet. It called for an
increase in nuclear power generation by about 30 percent (13,000 MWe), with the expectation that utilities
would have 9 to 12 new nuclear plants operating by 2011.
At present Japan has 54 reactors totalling 45,520 MWe on line, with 3 (3300 MWe) under construction and
12 (14,400 MWe) planned.
www.ksu.edu/debate
21
Nuclear energy bad – warming

Worsening global warming, killing miners, and emitting large
amounts of radioactive radon gasses are all effects of the nuclear
fuel cycle.
NUKEFREE.ORG. 2007. (NUKEFREE.ORG, “GLOBAL WARMING – NUCLEAR POWER MAKES GLOBAL
WARMING WORSE” July 8, 2008, http://nukefree.org/facts/global-warming)
The nuclear fuel cycle is also a major contributor to global warming. Gouging uranium out of the ground
requires the burning of fossil fuels. It also kills miners, both in underground accidents and in the
heightened lung cancer rates caused by ingesting radon gas. Still more fossil fuels are used to crush the
ore when it comes out of the mines. The mined rocks are turned into fine sand as they are subjected to an
intense acid bath. The acid and the materials it leaches wind up in huge poisonous pools whose off-gasses
are exceedingly toxic. While the usable uranium is shipped (again burning fossil fuels) for processing, the
residual mill tailings are left in gargantuan piles weighing billions of tons. These enormous mountains are
the world's largest emitters of radioactive radon gas, whose effects are measurable thousands of miles
away.
Warming the planet, emitting greenhouse gasses, and super-

heating makes nuclear energy actually worse for the environment
in the long run.
Nor does the comparison end with the production of nuclear fuel. The reactors themselves emit huge
quantities of heat into the air and water. Atomic plants in France and the US have already been forced to
shut because of the super-heating of the rivers and lakes where they dump their waste heat. In essence,
by converting inert uranium into massive quantities of heat, nuke reactors heat the planet directly, as well
as indirectly through the global warming gasses the fuel cycle produces.
Fuel rods and shipping nuclear waste, both important parts of the
nuclear fuel cycle, require fossil fueled energy, which just adds to
the problem of warming.
Once fuel rods emerge from the reactors, they must be stored indefinitely. They require intense security
and, in many cases, entire cooling systems which themselves consume energy. All nuke reactors require
off-site backup power of some sort---usually fossil fueled---because reactor cooling systems as well as
those spent fuel pools must be continuously cooled, no matter how the reactor itself performs. Should a
central waste repository ever open, tens of thousands of energy-hogging truck and train shipments will be
needed to move the spent fuel to it. The proposed Yucca Mountain dump, which may never open, has
already consumed $11 billion in expenditures and emitted countless tons of climate changing gasses.
The process of making nuclear energy uses coal-fired plants that

contribute to warming. They could be replaced with other nuclear
reactors, but it would take at least a decade to achieve.
The milled ore is then treated in an extremely energy-intensive enrichment process that in the United
States consumes the output of at least two large coal-fired plants. Industry supporters have suggested
this process could be powered by other nuclear reactors, but such a transition would take at least a
decade. Nor would it significantly lessen nuke power's overall global warming impact. Though by some
www.ksu.edu/debate
22
calculations atomic energy may emit fewer greenhouse gasses than some coal burners, it emits far more
than wind farms and other renewable sources. The global warming comparison between a dollar spent on
nuke power and a dollar spent on increased conservation and efficiency tips entirely on the green side.
Nuclear energy bad – warming Cont’d

Almost every aspect of a nuclear reactor requires fossil fuels.
Dr. Helen Caldicott(founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility.) 9/3/2001
“Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous” http://www.healthandenergy.com/nuclear_dangers.htm
Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious
is that nuclear power is “clean” and, therefore, the answer to global warming.
We heard this during the last round of talks in Bonn, and we can expect to hear more of the same as we
move closer to the next round of Kyoto talks that are coming up in Marrakesh in October and November.
However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-
lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.
While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that
enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear
power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself.
Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy.
(During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its
uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world’s uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of
the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate
nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades.
But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-
year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece,
a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the
amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be
dismantled. That’s the scale we’re talking about.
And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm
storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor.
Any benefits of nuclear energy are outweighed by making

warming worse.
Whatever margin nuke power might seem to have over coal, oil and gas burners in terms of global
warming emissions, it loses against efficiency, conservation and renewables. On any balance sheet that
includes security risks, intense capital costs, time to build and sheer lack of economic performance, atomic
energy loses hands down. Further investments in this failed technology divert scarce capital from the
conservation, efficiency and renewables that really can solve the climate crisis. To our greenhouse gas
problem, atomic energy merely adds an unwanted radioactive dimension.
www.ksu.edu/debate
23
Nuclear energy bad – trade off

Billions of dollars have been wasted on unproductive nuclear
reactors around the world for the past 50 years. The USFG should
be paying more attention to green power.
WARMING WORSE” July 8, 2008, http://nukefree.org/facts/uninsurable)
Fifty years ago the pushers of the "Peaceful Atom"---including Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission---promised electricity that would be "too cheap to meter." The pledge has turned into
the biggest lie in U.S. financial history. Far from being cheap or reliable, nuclear power plants have drained
the American economy of hundreds of billions of dollars. That money could have financed green power
sources that would have avoided the global warming crisis and freed the US from dependence on foreign
energy sources. The key decision was made in 1953. A year earlier, Harry Truman's Blue Ribbon Paley
Commission reported that the future of American energy was with renewable sources. Predicting 15
million solar-heated homes by 1975, the Truman Administration knew that our best route to energy
independence and economic security was with green power. In 1953, Bell Laboratories made an historic
breakthrough, perfecting photovoltaic (PV) technology to the point that cells made of silicon could
transform sunlight into usable electric current. The first cells were used to power space satellites. But the
prospect of making homes and offices energy self-sufficient with PV rooftop installations was a
monumental moment in technological history. In an essentially military decision, Dwight Eisenhower chose
nuclear power instead. Pledging to share the Peaceful Atom worldwide, Eisenhower turned the US away
from green power. Through the ensuing half-century, atomic reactor construction was defined by epic cost
overruns and delays. The two reactors proposed in the 1960s for Seabrook, New Hampshire for a total of
$250 million turned into one for $7 billion, decades late. Long Island's $7 billion Shoreham operated
briefly, then shut. Overall, Forbes compared the losses on nuke power to "a commitment bigger than the
space program ($100 billion) [and] the Vietnam War ($111 billion). The scale of the "collapse" was
"appalling." During the deregulation crisis of 1999-2001, the industry took more than $100 billion in
"stranded cost" payouts from state and federal sources. Reactor owners argued that nuclear power was
too expensive to compete in a deregulated market, and that they were owed compensation for having
risked their capital on an experiment that failed. Today the nuclear industry says all that is behind them,
and that a "new generation" of reactors will somehow reverse a half-century of catastrophic economics.
But in Finland, the first of these plants is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over
budget. And the renewable energy industry on which Eisenhower turned his back on 1953 has come of
age. Wind power is far cheaper than nukes, can be installed quickly, and helps solve rather than worsen
the global warming crisis. Solar, bio-fuels, efficiency and conservation all have investors lining up for
them, without the need for taxpayer guarantees or government-backed catastrophic liability insurance. To
invest in nukes is to throw still more good money at a bad technology. Those who do so guarantee us all
fifty more years of economic chaos and energy shortfalls.
www.ksu.edu/debate
24
Nuclear energy bad – reactor disasters

Human error and earthquakes are the reason for most reactor
disasters. If one does occur there will be consequences not only in
casualties but also economically.
WARMING WORSE” July 8, 2008, http://nukefree.org/facts/radioactive)
All reactors teeter on the brink of disaster, with delicate vulnerability in the control room, wiring systems,
cooling pumps, spent fuel pools, off-site power, off-site communications systems, and innumerable other
hot spots. Repeated security tests indicate the industry simply cannot protect all or even most of these
vital points from a concerted terror attack, by air, land or sea. Today, dozens of American reactors, like
Indian Point, are sited in regions that are very thickly populated. A study by the Sandia Laboratory warned
that a reactor accident could kill 3400 people in the short-term, cause 45,000 long-term casualties and
irradiate a land mass "the size of Pennsylvania." Today those casualty estimates would have to be
multiplied many times over. And the economic consequences of rendering places like southern New York
state or, indeed, Pennsylvania itself, are simply beyond calculation. One thing is certain---the US economy
would be hard-pressed to recover from a full-blown catastrophe. Sadly, it would not require a terror attack
to do that kind of damage. Error is also very much with us. Ohio's Davis-Besse reactor came within a
fraction of an inch of catastrophe after plant operators failed to detect a boric acid leak that had eaten
nearly all the way through a six-inch thick reactor pressure vessel. A cooling tower at Vermont Yankee
recently collapsed without warning (except from environmental groups, which predicted its probability, and
were scorned by the industry). An earthquake in Japan has done significant damage to the world's largest
reactor complex, with a high likelihood of still more shocks.
www.ksu.edu/debate
25
Environmental groups agree that nuclear power is too expensive,
unsafe, and it is not a good solution.
Even as debate churns in the newspapers, there is a striking amount of unanimity among the leading
environmental organizations that nuclear power is not a smart way to address climate change. The
National Wildlife Federation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) are among the many groups arguing that there are quicker and cheaper ways to reduce
greenhouse gases. What the industry heralds as a "revival" these groups dub a "relapse." "Nuclear power
is the most expensive way to make minor emissions cuts," says Michael Mariotte, executive director of the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "You add this to all of nuclear power's other problems-safety
and proliferation and radioactive waste-and it's not a good solution." Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the
Sierra Club, agrees. "The industry is putting lipstick on a pig here," he says. "Solving one problem and
creating another isn't a durable solution. It doesn't make sense to solve global warming by creating a ton
of nuclear waste that we don't know what to do with."
Human error and natural disasters can cause an accident at any

nuclear power plant which requires evacuation and expensive
clean up.
Co-op America Climate Action ©2004-2005
“Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power”
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm
Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters –
can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation
and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands poisoned by radiation.
Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately
lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after
one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to
17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many
nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. For example, there’s a plant just up the
Hudson from New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.
Nuclear energy bad – terror attacks

Thankfully, humankind has never experienced the horrifying event
of a jet plane flying into the containment dome of an active atomic
reactor. The industry likes to claim that there would be no
penetration. But that's wishful thinking. It has no hard data---and
let's hope it never does.
www.ksu.edu/debate
26
WARMING WORSE” July 8, 2008, http://nukefree.org/facts/radioactive)
It is widely known that a large jet---or even a small plane laden with explosives---would not have to
actually breach a reactor containment to cause a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. The resulting
fires alone could do potentially fatal damage. Radiation at Three Mile Island escaped through the venting
stacks, not a cracked containment. All reactors teeter on the brink of disaster, with delicate vulnerability in
the control room, wiring systems, cooling pumps, spent fuel pools, off-site power, off-site communications
systems, and innumerable other hot spots. Repeated security tests indicate the industry simply cannot
protect all or even most of these vital points from a concerted terror attack, by air, land or sea. The
consequences of such a disaster are unimaginable. The 1986 explosion at Chernboyl Unit 4 has caused
thousands of confirmed casualties---including a plague of cancers, birth defects and reproductive disease---
and done at least a half-trillion dollars worth of damage.
www.ksu.edu/debate
27
Nuclear energy bad - death

Mining, milling, and waste dumps have huge impacts on humans
and the environment including death.
WARMING WORSE” July 9, 2008, http://nukefree.org/facts/uranium-weapons)
Despite the nuclear energy industry's well-funded efforts to convince the public otherwise, uranium fuel for
atomic power plants is in limited supply. Like coal, oil and gas, it will soon run out, leaving scores of giant
reactors useless and abandoned. Also like fossil fuels, the impact of mining and processing fuel for nuclear
power plants involves huge impacts on humans and the environment. With mines mostly in Australia, the
American west, Canada, and central and southern Africa, atomic power has created huge ecological crises
whose solutions are a long way off and are already proving to be exceedingly expensive. When uranium
ore is gouged out the ground, it emits radon gas that fills mine shafts with deadly fumes. Uranium miners
throughout the world have historically suffered from abnormally high lung cancer rates. They also die in
the same kinds of accidents that kill coal and other ore miners. When the raw uranium is brought to the
surface, it's milled into fine sands called tailings. Billions of tons of these waste granules are dumped near
milling plants throughout the world, emitting huge quantities of radioactive radon gas, a well-known cause
of lung cancer. Radon emissions from mills in Colorado and New Mexico have been tracked as far away as
New York City and Washington DC. They are the number one source of increased background radiation
from the atomic fuel cycle. Alongside the mills are huge ponds of acid solutions used to separate the
usable uranium isotopes from the waste. These ponds are extremely lethal to human beings and
poisonous to the environment. Periodically the dams holding them back break, wrecking ghastly havoc on
the regions downstream.
Cancer is caused by nuclear energy making other alternative

energies superior.
There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and
other forms of cancer – even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found
increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was
established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear
power sites in Europe.
According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, nuclear power plants produce numerous
dangerous, carcinogenic elements. Among them are: iodine 131, which bio-concentrates in leafy
vegetables and milk and can induce thyroid cancer; strontium 90, which bio-concentrates in milk and
bone, and can induce breast cancer, bone cancer, and leukemia; cesium 137, which bio-concentrates in
meat, and can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma; and plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is
so dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer, lung
cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind
exist now, we don’t have to rely on risky nuclear power.
www.ksu.edu/debate
28
Nuclear energy bad – atomic

weapons/waste
Reprocessing is a myth that hurts the economy and the
environment and also threatens the world with the production of
more atomic weapons.
WARMING WORSE” July 9, 2008, http://nukefree.org/facts/uranium-weapons)
In recent years the nuke power industry has tried to revive the myth of reprocessing, by which spent fuel
can be re-formed into usable fuel. The technology has been tried in a number of nations, including the
US. But it is prohibitively expensive, and makes no economic sense. It also generates substantial new
quantities of intensely radioactive waste for which no long-term disposal methods have been discovered.
Reprocessing also creates large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, the material used to build the
Bomb that destroyed Nagasaki. Making more plutonium under any circumstances threatens the world with
the production of still more atomic weapons. India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel, along with numerous
other countries, are known to have fashioned nuclear weapons from uranium extracted from ostensibly
civilian nuclear power programs. Recently the United States has threatened war with Iran on the
presumption that the civilian enrichment process would give them the fissionable materials needed to
build their own atomic weapons.
There are still no repositories that can hold waste or spent fuel
rods that are dangerously piling up and can kill a person in 5
minutes.
WARMING WORSE” July 9, 2008, http://nukefree.org/facts/waste-storage)
From the very birth of the idea of controlled nuclear fission, all concerned understood that managing the
spent fuel rods from atomic reactors would be a horrifically complicated and massively expensive
proposition. Many have warned over the years that it could not be done, and that for this reason alone,
nuclear power plants should not be built or operated. But the industry promised to manage these
materials. There would be a central repository, they said. Radioactive waste would be out of sight and out
of mind. It hasn't happened. Tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel assemblies are piling up at reactor
sites throughout the US---and the world. The rods in these arrays are so intensely radioactive that a
human being standing unprotected nearby would die within a few short minutes. If they are not properly
cooled and isolated, these rods from Hell could easily cause radioactive releases of apocalyptic
proportions. The industry is fond of saying that the solutions to this problem are "political, not
technological." Its hired representatives often talk about reprocessing these arrays into re-usable fuel, but
this technology has been tried, and has failed. It is extremely expensive, very very dirty and produces
plutonium that could be used for nuclear weapons.
www.ksu.edu/debate
29
Yucca Mountain waste dump has not yet been licensed and has
already cost the public $11 billion along with being unpopular with
the people of Nevada, located on an earthquake fault line, and
potentially causing a steam explosion.
The industry is also pushing the Yucca Mountain waste dump, proposed for a dormant volcano in the
Nevada desert. This proposed project has already consumed $11 billion in public funds. It is not yet
licensed and may never be. Its earliest possible opening date is a decade away, at a project cost of at
least $60 billion. Critics---who are so often right in this business---say a more realistic final cost would be
$100 billion, and that the facility might never open anyway. Yucca Mountain has been opposed by some
80% of the people of Nevada. It is a dormant volcano surrounded by other dormant volcanoes. A visible
earthquake fault runs right through it. It hosts a pool of "perched water" above the areas meant to host
spent fuel, meaning an earthquake could drop liquid matter onto stored fuel rods, potentially leading to a
steam explosion.

weapons/waste Cont’d
Transporting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain would risk
radioactive material accidents on highways and there wouldn’t
even be enough space in the facility to store materials from any
new reactors.
Moving currently existing spent fuel rods to Yucca Mountain would today require tens of thousands of trips
by truck and train. Accidents involving the shipment of radioactive materials are not uncommon. Spent
fuel mishaps are inevitable; tens of millions of Americans would be exposed on our freeways and railways,
and by these shipments passing by their homes. For all the furor surrounding it, Yucca Mountain as
designed could not handle all spent fuel projected to be produced by existing reactors. Dump space for
spent fuel from any new reactors that might be built would have to go to a facility that has not been
proposed, designed, sited or named. Few if any other materials ever created by human beings can match
spent nuclear fuel for toxicity, explosive potential or the ability to destroy human life at close range. As
with so much else about nuclear power, the industry's promise to manage this trash has been dumped on
the public---the taxpayers, the rate payers, the people of Nevada, the tens of millions on our highways and
railways.
Nuclear energy may lead to nuclear proliferation.

In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, “During my 8 years in the White House, every
nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.” Iran and
30
North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program
www.ksu.edu/debate
without confronting proliferation in other countries. Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the
reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the
technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world,
we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as
an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into
the wrong hands
Yucca Mountain waste depository won’t be ready to use until 2017

and may leak water. There would be no need for the depository if
plants reprocessed fuel but then there would be risks of nuclear
weapons.
Industry representatives and federal officials have fought to build a single national nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Recent studies, however, show that the mountain,
formerly believed to be bone dry, may leak water, which would make it an unacceptable vault. Another
major concern about waste storage is the logistical nightmare of relocating tons of spent fuel to Yucca
Mountain. The most optimistic scenario doesn't envision Yucca Mountain's opening until 2017.
Nuclear plants could reduce the need for waste storage by "reprocessing" the fuel, but that would create
weapons-grade radioactive material. While the industry has improved plant management and design since
the Three Mile Island near-meltdown, post-9/11 fears have created new safety worries, including the
possibility that terrorists could attack a plant or obtain nuclear materials to make "dirty bombs" or atomic
weapons.
www.ksu.edu/debate
31

weapons/waste Cont’d
Toxic waste does not yet have adequate storage and
transportation to that storage would put millions of people at risk.
The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It’s untenable
now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone
17,000 plants is unthinkable.
Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less waste, but this
technology is not yet fully developed or proven. Even if new technology eventually can successful reduce
the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic for 100,000 years. There will be less per
plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants. No
community should have to accept nuclear waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being
transported through on route to its final destination. The waste problem alone should take nuclear power
off the table.
The Bush administration’s solution – a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain – is
overbudget and won’t provide a safe solution either. The people of Nevada don’t want that nuclear waste
facility there. Also, we would need to transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country and
drive it there – which puts communities across the country at risk.
www.ksu.edu/debate
32
Nuclear energy bad – expensive

Environmental groups agree that nuclear power is too expensive,
unsafe, and it is not a good solution.
Even as debate churns in the newspapers, there is a striking amount of unanimity among the leading
environmental organizations that nuclear power is not a smart way to address climate change. The
National Wildlife Federation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) are among the many groups arguing that there are quicker and cheaper ways to reduce
greenhouse gases. What the industry heralds as a "revival" these groups dub a "relapse." "Nuclear power
is the most expensive way to make minor emissions cuts," says Michael Mariotte, executive director of the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "You add this to all of nuclear power's other problems-safety
and proliferation and radioactive waste-and it's not a good solution." Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the
Sierra Club, agrees. "The industry is putting lipstick on a pig here," he says. "Solving one problem and
creating another isn't a durable solution. It doesn't make sense to solve global warming by creating a ton
of nuclear waste that we don't know what to do with."
Compared to other alternative energies, nuclear energy has far

higher costs.
Cost is another pressing issue. Even with government subsidies, nuclear power is not cheap. The
complicated reactors cost between $2.5 billion and $4 billion each; the Watts Bar plant ended up with a
price tag of $7 billion. The capital costs of atomic expansion are so high that one nuclear executive told the
New York Times that his firm's chief financial officer "would have a heart attack" if he proposed
constructing a new reactor.
From a market standpoint, constructing new plants does not appear to be economically competitive. Most
estimates put nuclear generated electricity at around 8 to 11 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). By
comparison, wind prices currently average 5 cents per kWh. Energy efficiency improvements can cost even
less-for example, swapping out incandescent lightbulbs for compact fluorescents amounts to less than 4
cents per kWh. "Just financially, it won't happen," says Geoff Fettus, a senior attorney at the NRDC, about
an expansion of nuclear power. "The question we pose to people is not whether you are for or against
nuclear power, but whether you are for or against new subsidies for nuclear power. We think they are a
terrible waste of money. If you move away from the subsidies for nuclear, the debate ends right there."
Costs of nuclear energy plants will only go up and ruin local

economies.
Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like
computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power,
however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each
successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately
paying the price.
What’s worse, nuclear power is centralized power. A nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local
economy. In contrast, accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green
www.ksu.edu/debate
33
collar, jobs in every community. Around the world, nuclear plants are seeing major cost overruns. For
example, a new generation nuclear plant in Finland is already experiencing numerous problems and cost
overruns of 25 percent of its $4 billion budget. The US government’s current energy policy providing more
than $11 billion in subsidies to the nuclear energy could be much better spent providing safe and clean
energy that would give a boost to local communities, like solar and wind power do. Subsidizing costly
nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that
will take the profits out of the communities they build in.
www.ksu.edu/debate
34
Nuclear energy bad –timeframe bad

Time frame for building enough plants to make a difference is too
long.
Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium
mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance
the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate
change, the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort
against climate change. It simply isn’t possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten
years. With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we
need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar
power, wind power, and energy conservation.
www.ksu.edu/debate
35
The United States should learn from other

countries
Great Britain does not subsidize
Presently, the U.K. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. Because the
U.K. is already a net importer of energy and all but one of its coal-fired and nuclear plants are scheduled to
be decommissioned by 2023, building new reactors is a must for the U.K. if it is to avoid creating increased
energy dependencies. The British government, while providing long-term politically stable support for
nuclear power, has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. The U.S., on the other hand,
continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry. As a
result, the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward,
while the U.S. model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and
industry.
Japan only allows peaceful nuclear research

Japan started its nuclear research program in 1954, with Y230 million being budgeted for nuclear energy.
The Atomic Energy Basic Law, which strictly limits the use of nuclear technology to peaceful purposes, was
introduced in 1955. The law aims to ensure that three principles - democratic methods, independent
management, and transparency - are the basis of nuclear research activities, as well as promoting
international co-operation. Inauguration of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1956 promoted nuclear
power development and utilisation. Several other nuclear energy-related organisations were also
established in 1956 under this law: the Science & Technology Agency; Japan Atomic Energy Research
Institute (JAERI) and the Atomic Fuel Corporation (renamed PNC in 1967 - see below).
www.ksu.edu/debate
36

Nuclear Energy 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Energy 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Nuclear energy general] WDW 2k8

No new nuclear plants coming now

Regulations from the government make it hard for new nuclear

Because of the overblown Three Mile Island accident in

Coal bad – particulate matter

Nuclear energy waste is small compared to coal combustion

Minimal risk of accidents

Because they don’t do their own research, opponents’ judgments

Minimal risk of accidents-Cont’d

Nuclear better than wind, water, solar,

Only nuclear energy can produce the amount of energy needed to

No dependence on fossil fuels with nuclear

Nuclear energy can make America independent of foreign energy

Nuclear is safe for the enviornment

Nuclear power plants produce almost no atmospheric emissions.

Being less harmful than fossil fuels, many countries turn to

Nuclear is safe for the environment cont.

Nuclear waste no problem

Relying on the Yucca Mountain repository won’t be a problem if we

No risk of nuclear weapons being

Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is wholly different from using

Transportation of waste is safe

It is empirically proven that there are no unacceptable risks for

It is empirically proven that there are no unacceptable risks for

No risk of terrorist attack

Nuclear energy is economically good

Competiveness means that countries whom produce nuclear

France deems nuclear technologies economical strength

Nuclear reactors have been proven to

Other countries say yes

Removing restrictions on the construction of new nuclear plants

France is almost entirely fossil fuel independent because of

Other countries say yes Cont’d

Nuclear energy bad – warming

Warming the planet, emitting greenhouse gasses, and super-

The process of making nuclear energy uses coal-fired plants that

Nuclear energy bad – warming Cont’d

Any benefits of nuclear energy are outweighed by making

Nuclear energy bad – trade off

Nuclear energy bad – reactor disasters

Human error and natural disasters can cause an accident at any

Nuclear energy bad – terror attacks

Nuclear energy bad - death

Cancer is caused by nuclear energy making other alternative

Nuclear energy bad – atomic

Nuclear energy bad – atomic

Nuclear energy may lead to nuclear proliferation.

Yucca Mountain waste depository won’t be ready to use until 2017

Nuclear energy bad – atomic

Nuclear energy bad – expensive

Compared to other alternative energies, nuclear energy has far

Costs of nuclear energy plants will only go up and ruin local

Nuclear energy bad –timeframe bad

The United States should learn from other

Japan only allows peaceful nuclear research

You might also like