1AC

Plan
The United States federal government should streamline the regulatory
framework applicable to ocean thermal energy conversion.
1AC Resources
Scenario 1 Hydrogen Economy
OTEC provides an inexhaustible and almost infinitely renewable source of
hydrogen and facilitates the transition to a hydrogen economy
Huang et al 3 Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Hans J. Krock, Emeritus Professor of Ocean and Resources Engineering at the University
of Hawaii at Manoa, holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from the University of California at
Berkeley, Stephen Oney, Professor of Ocean &. Resources Engineering, University of Hawaii and PhD.,
executive vice president of OCEES, July 2003 (Revisit Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System,
Energy Efciency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n864l3217156h045/fulltext.pdf)
Perhaps the largest contribution to human society and the global environment that OTEC will have is as
the supplier of hydrogen for the impending hydrogen economy. The huge energy reservoir in the
tropical ocean available via the OTEC process will require a transportable form of that energy to allow
access by the energy demand centers in the temperate zone. The most attractive and versatile
transportable energy form is hydrogen. There are natural synergies between OTEC and hydrogen
production, especially liquid hydrogen (LH2), which other renewables such as wind and solar do not
possess. These include: Full and efficient utilization can be made of the investment in production
capacity because OTEC is available 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. This is in contrast to most
renewable energy systems such as wind, waves, tide, direct solar and photovoltaics. Also, OTEC systems
cannot exhaust the resource at the location where they are installed in contrast to oil, natural gas,
geothermal or even hydroelectric (the reservoir eventually silts up); The efficient production of
hydrogen by electrolysis requires very pure water for the KOH solution. A small part of the OTEC process
can be used to produce this pure water from the surface seawater, resulting in high efficiency
electrolysis; Liquefying hydrogen by the Claude process requires an efficient heat sink to minimize
process energy. The Claude process, which cools compressed hydrogen gas with liquid nitrogen prior to
expansion through a Joules-Thompson valve to complete the liquefaction process, requires a significant
heat sink to maintain liquid nitrogen temperatures (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Technology 1989).
The cold seawater that is used in the OTEC process could provide this efficient heat sink; Liquid
hydrogen is most efficiently transported by ocean tanker. The off-shore OTEC hydrogen plant is already
located on the transport medium and therefore would result in the lowest cost for transport to
market. From a global perspective, ocean transport distances of OTEC derived LH2 are much shorter
than our present system of oil transport from the Middle East around Africa to North America or Europe
or from the Middle East around India and the Malay Peninsula to Japan. The successful development of
a global hydrogen economy will undoubtedly have to involve the largest renewable energy resource in
the world the tropical ocean. OTEC technology is the best way to tap into this virtually limitless
thermal reservoir to produce hydrogen to support the impending hydrogen economy. Offshore OTEC
plants, utilizing techniques already developed for accessing deep water oil fields, can be adapted to
produce and liquefy hydrogen and ensure a sustainable supply of hydrogen from an environmentally
benign, renewable resource for future generations.
Even without an immediate transition, a hydrogen economy solves oil
dependence and broader conflict. Growing energy demands guarantee an
impending oil crisis psychology and systems analysis prove this escalates.
Gresser and Cusumano 5 Julian Gresser, Founder of the Alliances for Discovery, Chairman of
Energy Voyager & Founding Member of the Green India Consortium. Julian Gresser is an international
attorney, negotiator, inventor, and recognized expert on Japan, James A. Cusumano, holds a Ph.D. in
physical chemistry, former chairman of Catalytica Inc., March/April 2005 (Hydrogen and the New
Energy Economy, The Futurist, Ebsco)
Today, oil supplies 40% of the worlds energy needs and 90% of its transportation requirements. Global
economic growth over the next 15 years will increase petroleums share of energy generation to 60%,
most of this demanded by the transportation sector when the number of cars increases from 700 million
to 1.25 bil- lion. The annual economic growth rate of rapidly industrializing nations such as China (10%)
and India (7%) will greatly intensify the pressure, while at the same time proven reserves will continue
to be drawn down at four times the rate of new discoveries. If the world were constant and only the
demand for oil increased without the concomitant decrease in production that we projecta signif-
icant rise in the price of oil could be managed solely as an energy supply problem as it was in the 1980s.
But the world has become far riskier and uncertain, and the coming sharp spikes in the price of oil
could have severe impacts. For one thing, the worlds financial, economic, energy, environmental, and
other systems have become increasingly integrated. If the integrity or robustness of any of these
systems is significantly compromised, the stresses may well be rapidly transferred to other systems,
leading to global chaos. A sharp rise in the price of oil will also fall most heavily on the most
impoverished countries and the poorest people in industrialized soci- eties, substantially increasing their
suffering. Systems based on suffer- ing of this magnitude eventually become unstable. The systemic
chaos ensuing from this predicted oil crisis could pose psychological trauma because throughout most of
human history the rate of change has proceeded in a linear, if not entirely orderly, way. Today in
virtually every sector of the industrialized world, the rate of change is becoming exponential. We are
poorly adapted psychologically and emotionally for this shift and will be prone to panic in times of
crisis. Such panic could quickly escalate to catastrophe, with weapons of mass destruction now widely
avail- able, inexpensively produced, and easily deployed. That possibility is all the more threatening as
the num- ber of terrorist groups actively seek- ing to acquire these weapons and to cause havoc,
murder, and mayhem multiplies. When tightly coupled systems become as stressed as they currently
are, and when these stresses do not abate, but rather compound as now seems likely, there is a
tendency for these systems to reach a tipping pointwhen a single event, though not catastrophic in
itself, has the potential to unleash a cascade of disorder and turbulence. Most policy makers overlook
the oil-price tipping point because they do not appear to understandfrom a systems perspectivethe
linkage of oil prices to other destabilizing trends. Currently, more than 20% of the worlds oil is in the
hands of nations known to sponsor terrorism, and are under sanctions by the United States and/or the
United Nations. As a re- sult, oil-producing nations in the Middle East will gain an influence on world
affairs previously unthink- able by energy and political strate- gists. These nations will continue to
increase their arms, leading to greater instability in that region and worldwide. Massive wealth will flow
to terrorist organizations as the free world indirectly rewards their sponsors through the purchase of oil
at increasingly higher prices. Fixed supplies, stalled discoveries, and sharply increased consumption will
drive prices in the near future to an oil-price tipping point. The wisest way to anticipate and mitigate
this risk would be to implement an immediate quantum jump into energy conservation and hydrogen
development. This will help us avoid, or at least minimize, the dislocations of the oil-price tip- ping
point, while achieving an orderly and smooth transition to a Hydrogen Economy in later stages of the
program. To be sure, even this quantum jump strategy will likely require 15 to 20 years to achieve broad
displacement of current oil sources by hydrogen.
Dependence on oil guarantees intensified conflicts over energy in global
hotspots. New sources of energy are necessary.
Klare 12 Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, holds a
Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute in 1976, 2012 (Tomgram: Michael Klare, Oil Wars
on the Horizon, TomDispatch, May 10
th
,
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175540/tomgram%3A_michael_klare,_oil_wars_on_the_horizon/ |
ADM)
*Sudan War, SCS War, Egypt-Israel, Argentina-Spain, Falklands War, US-Iran War
Conflict and intrigue over valuable energy supplies have been features of the international landscape
for a long time. Major wars over oil have been fought every decade or so since World War I, and smaller
engagements have erupted every few years; a flare-up or two in 2012, then, would be part of the
normal scheme of things. Instead, what we are now seeing is a whole cluster of oil-related clashes
stretching across the globe, involving a dozen or so countries, with more popping up all the time.
Consider these flash-points as signals that we are entering an era of intensified conflict over energy.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, Argentina to the Philippines, here are the six areas of conflict -- all tied
to energy supplies -- that have made news in just the first few months of 2012:
* A brewing war between Sudan and South Sudan: On April 10th, forces from the newly independent
state of South Sudan occupied the oil center of Heglig, a town granted to Sudan as part of a peace
settlement that allowed the southerners to secede in 2011. The northerners, based in Khartoum, then
mobilized their own forces and drove the South Sudanese out of Heglig. Fighting has since erupted all
along the contested border between the two countries, accompanied by air strikes on towns in South
Sudan. Although the fighting has not yet reached the level of a full-scale war, international efforts to
negotiate a cease-fire and a peaceful resolution to the dispute have yet to meet with success.
This conflict is being fueled by many factors, including economic disparities between the two Sudans and
an abiding animosity between the southerners (who are mostly black Africans and Christians or
animists) and the northerners (mostly Arabs and Muslims). But oil -- and the revenues produced by oil --
remains at the heart of the matter. When Sudan was divided in 2011, the most prolific oil fields wound
up in the south, while the only pipeline capable of transporting the souths oil to international markets
(and thus generating revenue) remained in the hands of the northerners. They have been demanding
exceptionally high transit fees -- $32-$36 per barrel compared to the common rate of $1 per barrel --
for the privilege of bringing the Souths oil to market. When the southerners refused to accept such
rates, the northerners confiscated money they had already collected from the souths oil exports, its
only significant source of funds. In response, the southerners stopped producing oil altogether and, it
appears, launched their military action against the north. The situation remains explosive.
* Naval clash in the South China Sea: On April 7th, a Philippine naval warship, the 378-foot Gregorio del
Pilar, arrived at Scarborough Shoal, a small island in the South China Sea, and detained eight Chinese
fishing boats anchored there, accusing them of illegal fishing activities in Filipino sovereign waters. China
promptly sent two naval vessels of its own to the area, claiming that the Gregorio del Pilar was harassing
Chinese ships in Chinese, not Filipino waters. The fishing boats were eventually allowed to depart
without further incident and tensions have eased somewhat. However, neither side has displayed any
inclination to surrender its claim to the island, and both sides continue to deploy warships in the
contested area.
As in Sudan, multiple factors are driving this clash, but energy is the dominant motive. The South China
Sea is thought to harbor large deposits of oil and natural gas, and all the countries that encircle it,
including China and the Philippines, want to exploit these reserves. Manila claims a 200-nautical mile
exclusive economic zone stretching into the South China Sea from its western shores, an area it calls
the West Philippine Sea; Filipino companies say they have found large natural gas reserves in this area
and have announced plans to begin exploiting them. Claiming the many small islands that dot the South
China Sea (including Scarborough Shoal) as its own, Beijing has asserted sovereignty over the entire
region, including the waters claimed by Manila; it, too, has announced plans to drill in the area. Despite
years of talks, no solution has yet been found to the dispute and further clashes are likely.
* Egypt cuts off the natural gas flow to Israel: On April 22nd, the Egyptian General Petroleum
Corporation and Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company informed Israeli energy officials that they were
terminating the gas and purchase agreement under which Egypt had been supplying gas to Israel. This
followed months of demonstrations in Cairo by the youthful protestors who succeeded in deposing
autocrat Hosni Mubarak and are now seeking a more independent Egyptian foreign policy -- one less
beholden to the United States and Israel. It also followed scores of attacks on the pipelines carrying the
gas across the Negev Desert to Israel, which the Egyptian military has seemed powerless to prevent.
Ostensibly, the decision was taken in response to a dispute over Israeli payments for Egyptian gas, but
all parties involved have interpreted it as part of a drive by Egypts new government to demonstrate
greater distance from the ousted Mubarak regime and his (U.S.-encouraged) policy of cooperation with
Israel. The Egyptian-Israeli gas link was one of the most significant outcomes of the 1979 peace treaty
between the two countries, and its annulment clearly signals a period of greater discord; it may also
cause energy shortages in Israel, especially during peak summer demand periods. On a larger scale, the
cutoff suggests a new inclination to use energy (or its denial) as a form of political warfare and coercion.
* Argentina seizes YPF: On April 16th, Argentinas president, Cristina Fernndez de Kirchner, announced
that her government would seize a majority stake in YPF, the nations largest oil company. Under
President Kirchners plans, which she detailed on national television, the government would take a 51%
controlling stake in YPF, which is now majority-owned by Spains largest corporation, the energy firm
Repsol YPF. The seizure of its Argentinean subsidiary is seen in Madrid (and other European capitals) as
a major threat that must now be combated. Spains foreign minister, Jos Manuel Garca Margallo, said
that Kirchners move broke the climate of cordiality and friendship that presided over relations
between Spain and Argentina. Several days later, in what is reported to be only the first of several
retaliatory steps, Spain announced that it would stop importing biofuels from Argentina, its principal
supplier -- a trade worth nearly $1 billion a year to the Argentineans.
As in the other conflicts, this clash is driven by many urges, including a powerful strain of nationalism
stretching back to the Peronist era, along with Kirchners apparent desire to boost her standing in the
polls. Just as important, however, is Argentinas urge to derive greater economic and political benefit
from its energy reserves, which include the worlds third-largest deposits of shale gas. While long-term
rival Brazil is gaining immense power and prestige from the development of its offshore pre-salt
petroleum reserves, Argentina has seen its energy production languish. Repsol may not be to blame for
this, but many Argentineans evidently believe that, with YPF under government control, it will now be
possible to accelerate development of the countrys energy endowment, possibly in collaboration with a
more aggressive foreign partner like BP or ExxonMobil.
* Argentina re-ignites the Falklands crisis: At an April 15th-16th Summit of the Americas in Cartagena,
Colombia -- the one at which U.S. Secret Service agents were caught fraternizing with prostitutes --
Argentina sought fresh hemispheric condemnation of Britains continued occupation of the Falkland
Islands (called Las Malvinas by the Argentineans). It won strong support from every country present save
(predictably) Canada and the United States. Argentina, which says the islands are part of its sovereign
territory, has been raising this issue ever since it lost a war over the Falklands in 1982, but has recently
stepped up its campaign on several fronts -- denouncing London in numerous international venues and
preventing British cruise ships that visit the Falklands from docking in Argentinean harbors. The British
have responded by beefing up their military forces in the region and warning the Argentineans to avoid
any rash moves.
When Argentina and the U.K. fought their war over the Falklands, little was at stake save national pride,
the stature of the countrys respective leaders (Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher vs. an unpopular
military junta), and a few sparsely populated islands. Since then, the stakes have risen immeasurably as
a result of recent seismic surveys of the waters surrounding the islands that indicated the existence of
massive deposits of oil and natural gas. Several UK-based energy firms, including Desire Petroleum and
Rockhopper Exploration, have begun off-shore drilling in the area and have reported promising
discoveries. Desperate to duplicate Brazils success in the development of offshore oil and gas, Argentina
claims the discoveries lie in its sovereign territory and that the drilling there is illegal; the British, of
course, insist that its their territory. No one knows how this simmering potential crisis will unfold, but a
replay of the 1982 war -- this time over energy -- is hardly out of the question.
* U.S. forces mobilize for war with Iran: Throughout the winter and early spring, it appeared that an
armed clash of some sort pitting Iran against Israel and/or the United States was almost inevitable.
Neither side seemed prepared to back down on key demands, especially on Irans nuclear program, and
any talk of a compromise solution was deemed unrealistic. Today, however, the risk of war has
diminished somewhat -- at least through this election year in the U.S. -- as talks have finally gotten
under way between the major powers and Iran, and as both have adopted (slightly) more
accommodating stances. In addition, U.S. officials have been tamping down war talk and figures in the
Israeli military and intelligence communities have spoken out against rash military actions. However, the
Iranians continue to enrich uranium, and leaders on all sides say they are fully prepared to employ
force if the peace talks fail.
For the Iranians, this means blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel through which one-third
of the worlds tradable oil passes every day. The U.S., for its part, has insisted that it will keep the Strait
open and, if necessary, eliminate Iranian nuclear capabilities. Whether to intimidate Iran, prepare for
the real thing, or possibly both, the U.S. has been building up its military capabilities in the Persian Gulf
area, deploying two aircraft carrier battle groups in the neighborhood along with an assortment of air
and amphibious-assault capabilities.
One can debate the extent to which Washingtons long-running feud with Iran is driven by oil, but there
is no question that the current crisis bears heavily on global oil supply prospects, both through Irans
threats to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for forthcoming sanctions on Iranian oil exports, and
the likelihood that any air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities will lead to the same thing. Either way, the
U.S. military would undoubtedly assume the lead role in destroying Iranian military capabilities and
restoring oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. This is the energy-driven crisis that just wont go
away.
How Energy Drives the World
All of these disputes have one thing in common: the conviction of ruling elites around the world that the
possession of energy assets -- especially oil and gas deposits -- is essential to prop up national wealth,
power, and prestige.
This is hardly a new phenomenon. Early in the last century, Winston Churchill was perhaps the first
prominent leader to appreciate the strategic importance of oil. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he
converted British warships from coal to oil and then persuaded the cabinet to nationalize the Anglo-
Persian Oil Company, the forerunner of British Petroleum (now BP). The pursuit of energy supplies for
both industry and war-fighting played a major role in the diplomacy of the period between the World
Wars, as well as in the strategic planning of the Axis powers during World War II. It also explains
Americas long-term drive to remain the dominant power in the Persian Gulf that culminated in the first
Gulf War of 1990-91 and its inevitable sequel, the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The years since World War II have seen a variety of changes in the energy industry, including a shift in
many areas from private to state ownership of oil and natural gas reserves. By and large, however, the
industry has been able to deliver ever-increasing quantities of fuel to satisfy the ever-growing needs of a
globalizing economy and an expanding, rapidly urbanizing world population. So long as supplies were
abundant and prices remained relatively affordable, energy consumers around the world, including most
governments, were largely content with the existing system of collaboration among private and state-
owned energy leviathans.
But that energy equation is changing ominously as the challenge of fueling the planet grows more
difficult. Many of the giant oil and gas fields that quenched the worlds energy thirst in years past are
being depleted at a rapid pace. The new fields being brought on line to take their place are, on average,
smaller and harder to exploit. Many of the most promising new sources of energy -- like Brazils pre-
salt petroleum reserves deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean, Canadian tar sands, and American shale gas -
- require the utilization of sophisticated and costly technologies. Though global energy supplies are
continuing to grow, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past and are continually falling short
of demand. All this adds to the upward pressure on prices, causing anxiety among countries lacking
adequate domestic reserves (and joy among those with an abundance).
The world has long been bifurcated between energy-surplus and energy-deficit states, with the former
deriving enormous political and economic advantages from their privileged condition and the latter
struggling mightily to escape their subordinate position. Now, that bifurcation is looking more like a
chasm. In such a global environment, friction and conflict over oil and gas reserves -- leading to energy
conflicts of all sorts -- is only likely to increase.
Looking, again, at Aprils six energy disputes, one can see clear evidence of these underlying forces in
every case. South Sudan is desperate to sell its oil in order to acquire the income needed to kick-start its
economy; Sudan, on the other hand, resents the loss of oil revenues it controlled when the nation was
still united, and appears no less determined to keep as much of the Souths oil money as it can for itself.
China and the Philippines both want the right to develop oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea, and
even if the deposits around Scarborough Shoal prove meager, China is unwilling to back down in any
localized dispute that might undermine its claim to sovereignty over the entire region.
Egypt, although not a major energy producer, clearly seeks to employ its oil and gas supplies for
maximum political and economic advantage -- an approach sure to be copied by other small and mid-
sized suppliers. Israel, heavily dependent on imports for its energy, must now turn elsewhere for vital
supplies or accelerate the development of disputed, newly discovered offshore gas fields, a move that
could provoke fresh conflict with Lebanon, which says they lie in its own territorial waters. And
Argentina, jealous of Brazils growing clout, appears determined to extract greater advantage from its
own energy resources, even if this means inflaming tensions with Spain and Great Britain.
And these are just some of the countries involved in significant disputes over energy. Any clash with Iran
-- whatever the motivation -- is bound to jeopardize the petroleum supply of every oil-importing
country, sparking a major international crisis with unforeseeable consequences. Chinas determination
to control its offshore hydrocarbon reserves has pushed it into conflict with other countries with
offshore claims in the South China Sea, and into a similar dispute with Japan in the East China Sea.
Energy-related disputes of this sort can also be found in the Caspian Sea and in globally warming,
increasingly ice-free Arctic regions.
The seeds of energy conflicts and war sprouting in so many places simultaneously suggest that we are
entering a new period in which key state actors will be more inclined to employ force -- or the threat
of force -- to gain control over valuable deposits of oil and natural gas. In other words, were now on a
planet heading into energy overdrive.
This also solves warming OTEC alone eliminates more than 20% of current
emissions and transitioning to the hydrogen economy solves all emissions
Magesh 10 R. Magesh, Coastal Energy Private Limited, 2010 (OTEC Technology A World of Clean
Energy and Water, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, London, Volume II, June 30
th

July 2
nd
, ISBN 978-988-18210-7-2, available from the International Association of Engineers at
http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2010/WCE2010_pp1618-1623.pdf) Scientists all over the world
are making predictions about the ill effects of Global warming and its consequences on the mankind.
Conventional Fuel Fired Electric Power Stations contribute nearly 21.3% of the Global Green House Gas
emission annually. Hence, an alternative for such Power Stations is a must to prevent global warming.
One fine alternative that comes to the rescue is the Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) Power
Plant, the complete Renewable Energy Power Station for obtaining Cleaner and Greener Power. Even
though the concept is simple and old, recently it has gained momentum due to worldwide search for
clean continuous energy sources to replace the fossil fuels. The design of a 5 Megawatt OTEC Pre-
commercial plant is clearly portrayed to brief the OTEC technical feasibility along with economic
consideration studies for installing OTEC across the world. OTEC plant can be seen as a combined
Power Plant and Desalination plant. Practically, for every Megawatt of power generated by hybrid
OTEC plant, nearly 2.28 million litres of desalinated water is obtained every day. Its value is thus
increased because many parts of the globe are facing absolute water scarcity. OTEC could produce
enough drinking water to ease the crisis drought-stricken areas. The water can be used for local
agriculture and industry, any excess water being given or sold to neighboring communities. Index
TermsDesalinated water, Ocean Temperature Differences, Rankine Cycle, Renewable Energy. I.
INTRODUCTION OCEAN thermal energy conversion is a hydro energy conversion system, which uses the
temperature difference that exists between deep and shallow waters in tropical seas to run a heat
engine. The economic evaluation of OTEC plants indicates that their commercial future lies in floating
plants of approximately 100 MW capacity for industrialized nations and smaller plants for small-island-
developing-states (SIDS). The operational data is needed to earn the support required from the
financial community and developers. Considering a 100 MW (4-module) system, a 1/5-scaled version of
a 25 MW module is proposed as an appropriate size. A 5 MW precommercial plant is directly applicable
in some SIDS. OTEC works on Rankine cycle, using a low-pressure turbine to generate electric power.
There are two general types of OTEC design: closed-cycle plants utilize the evaporation of a working
fluid, such as ammonia or propylene, to drive the turbinegenerator, and open-cycle plants use steam
from evaporated R. Magesh is with Coastal Energen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai 600 006, Tamilnadu, India (e-
mail: wellingtonmagesh@ gmail.com). sea water to run the turbine. Another commonly known design,
hybrid plants, is a combination of the two. In fact, the plants would cool the ocean by the same amount
as the energy extracted from them. Apart from power generation, an OTEC plant can also be used to
pump up the cold deep sea water for air conditioning and refrigeration, if it is brought back to shore. In
addition, the enclosed sea water surrounding the plant can be used for aquaculture. Hydrogen
produced by subjecting the steam to electrolysis during the OTEC process can fuel hybrid automobiles,
provided hydrogen can be transported economically to sea shore. Another undeveloped opportunity is
the potential to mine ocean water for its 57 elements contained in salts and other forms and dissolved
in solution. The initial capital cost of OTEC power station would look high, but an OTEC plant would not
involve the wastetreatment or astronomical decommissioning costs of a nuclear facility. Also, it would
offset its expense through the sale of the desalinated water.
Independently, OTEC enables carbon absorption to further reduce global
warming and reduces the intensity and frequency of ocean storms
Takahashi et al 3 Patrick Takahashi, retired Professor of Engineering and Director of the Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii, former vice president for development of the Pacific
International Center for High Technology Research, Joseph Vadus, Senior Technology Advisor for the
National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Vice President of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, President of the Global Ocean Inc., Stephen Masutani,
Associate Researcher with the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii, member of
the team at the Pacific International Center for High Technology, 2003 (Energy from the Sea: The
Potential and Realities of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission, IOC Technical Series 66, UNESCO, June 30
th
,
http://www.jodc.go.jp/info/ioc_doc/Technical/135278e.pdf)
The widespread use of OTEC would reduce fossil fuel combustion. In addition, should a means be
developed to promote marine biomass growth using the deep ocean nutrients, it is possible that carbon
dioxide can be absorbed from the atmosphere to further reduce global climate warming [7]. The
combination of a floating coal power plant with an OTEC facility to enable deep ocean sequestration of
CO2 has been proposed [8]. OTEC uses cold deep sea water as a thermal sink, while ocean sequestration
treats it as a repository for anthropogenic CO2. These technologies have the potential for synergy,
including the sharing of platforms and equipment, addition of CO2 to the warm water OTEC intakes to
prevent biofouling of pipelines and heat exchangers, exploiting the negatively buoyant CO2 enriched sea
water to drive part of the upward water transport for OTEC, reduction of pumping costs for
sequestration, and carbon tax credits. As an early next step, the International Ocean Alliance Floating
Platform Summit [9] suggested a demonstration on a decommissioned oil platform, combining a 10-100
MW fossil fuel powerplant, small OTEC system and various associated co-products for testing in
Hawaiian waters. In the long term, as OTEC grazing plantships will be located in the warmest portion of
the oceans, where hurricanes are formed, it might be possible to eliminate or reduce the intensity of
these ocean storms. [10]
Warming causes extinction
Ahmed 2010 Nafeez, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development,
professor of International Relations and globalization at Brunel University and the University of Sussex,
2010 (Globalizing Insecurity: The Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic
Crises, Spotlight on Security, Volume 5, Issue 2, Spring/Summer, online)
Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warmings warming. The landmark 2007
Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which
warned that at then-current rates of increase of fossil fuel emissions, the earths global average
temperature would likely rise by 6C by the end of the 21st century creating a largely uninhabitable
planet was a wake-up call to the international community.*v+ Despite the pretensions of climate
sceptics, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has continued to produce evidence that the IPCCs
original scenarios were wrong not because they were too alarmist, but on the contrary, because they
were far too conservative. According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, current CO2 emissions are worse than all six scenarios contemplated by the IPCC. This implies
that the IPCCs worst-case six-degree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate
trajectory under current rates of emissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2C rise in global average
temperatures under an atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm)
constitutes a safe upper limit beyond which further global warming could trigger rapid and abrupt
climate changes that, in turn, could tip the whole earth climate system into a process of irreversible,
runaway warming.[vii] Unfortunately, we are already well past this limit, with the level of greenhouse
gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cutting-edge scientific data suggests that
the safe upper limit is in fact far lower. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for CO2 emissions is 350 ppm: If the present overshoot
of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.*ix+ A
wealth of scientific studies has attempted to explore the role of positive-feedback mechanisms
between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the warming process.
Emissions beyond 350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to the total loss of Arctic sea-ice in the
summer triggering magnified absorption of sun radiation, accelerating warming; the melting of Arctic
permafrost triggering massive methane injections into the atmosphere, accelerating warming; the loss
of half the Amazon rainforest triggering the momentous release of billions of tonnes of stored carbon,
accelerating warming; and increased microbial activity in the earths soil leading to further huge
releases of stored carbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few. Each of these feedback sub-
systems alone is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible, catastrophic effects that could tip the whole
earth climate system over the edge.[x] Recent studies now estimate that the continuation of business-
as-usual would lead to global warming of three to four degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple
irreversible, catastrophic impacts; and six, even as high as eight, degrees by the end of the century a
situation endangering the survival of all life on earth.[xi]
Scenario 2 The Ocean Ranch
Global agriculture is collapsing because of insufficient usable topsoil. This makes
food and water systems unsustainable and undermines the environment,
security, and health. Traditional risk assessment underestimates the impacts of
agricultural collapse.
Crawford 12 John Crawford, Judith and David Coffey Chair in Sustainable Agriculture at the
University of Sydney, holds a Ph.D. in Theoretical Astrophysics from the University of London, 2012
(What If the Worlds Soil Runs Out? World Economic Forum, Risk Response Series, available at TIME
Magazine, http://world.time.com/2012/12/14/what-if-the-worlds-soil-runs-out/ | ADM)
Its a strange notion, but some experts fear the world, at its current pace of consumption, is running out
of useable topsoil. The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with TIME, talked to University of
Sydney professor John Crawford on the seismic implications soil erosion and degradation may have in
the decades to come.
Is soil really in danger of running out?
A rough calculation of current rates of soil degradation suggests we have about 60 years of topsoil left.
Some 40% of soil used for agriculture around the world is classed as either degraded or seriously
degraded the latter means that 70% of the topsoil, the layer allowing plants to grow, is gone. Because
of various farming methods that strip the soil of carbon and make it less robust as well as weaker in
nutrients, soil is being lost at between 10 and 40 times the rate at which it can be naturally replenished.
Even the well-maintained farming land in Europe, which may look idyllic, is being lost at unsustainable
rates.
Why havent we heard more about this?
Probably because soil isnt sexy. People dont always think about how its connected with so many other
things: health, the environment, security, climate, water. For example, agriculture accounts for 70% of
our fresh water use: we pour most of our water straight onto the ground. If soil is not fit for purpose,
that water will be wasted, because it washes right through degraded soil and past the root system.
Given the enormous potential for conflict over water in the next 20-30 years, you dont want to
exacerbate things by continuing to damage the soil, which is exactly whats happening now.
(MORE: Feeding the Planet Without Destroying It)
How does soil erosion happen?
Soil is a living material: if you hold a handful of soil, there will be more microorganisms in there than the
number of people who have ever lived on the planet. These microbes recycle organic material, which
underpins the cycle of life on earth, and also engineer the soil on a tiny level to make it more resilient
and better at holding onto water. Microbes need carbon for food, but carbon is being lost from the soil
in a number of ways. Simply put, we take too much from the soil and dont put enough back. Whereas
the classic approach would have been to leave stubble in the field after harvest, this is now often being
burnt off, which can make it easier to grow the next crop, or its being removed and used for animal
feed. Second, carbon is lost by too much disturbance of the soil by over-ploughing and by the misuse of
certain fertilizers. And the third problem is overgrazing. If there are too many animals, they eat all the
plant growth, and one of the most important ways of getting carbon into the soil is through
photosynthesis.
What happens if this isnt addressed?
There are two key issues. One is the loss of soil productivity. Under a business as usual scenario,
degraded soil will mean that we will produce 30% less food over the next 20-50 years. This is against a
background of projected demand requiring us to grow 50% more food, as the population grows and
wealthier people in countries like China and India eat more meat, which takes more land to produce
weight-for-weight than, say, rice.
Second, water will reach a crisis point. This issue is already causing conflicts in India, China, Pakistan
and the Middle East and before climate change and food security really hit, the next wars are likely to
be fought over unsustainable irrigation. Even moderately degraded soil will hold less than half of the
water than healthy soil in the same location. If youre irrigating a crop, you need water to stay in the soil
close to the plant roots. However, a staggering paper was published recently indicating that nearly half
of the sea level rise since 1960 is due to irrigation water flowing straight past the crops and washing out
to sea.
Who will be impacted the most?
Soil erosion is most serious in China, Africa, India and parts of South America. If the food supply goes
down, then obviously, the price goes up. The crisis points will hit the poorest countries hardest, in
particular those which rely on imports: Egypt, for example, is almost entirely dependent on imports of
wheat. The capacity of the planet to produce food is already causing conflict. A lot of people argue that
food price hikes caused the Arab spring, and may even have contributed to the recent violence following
the release of an anti-Islam film.
(MORE: Food Fight! Stores, Producers, Consumers Battle over High Food Prices)
What about richer countries?
They will have to deal with more refugees fleeing from truly desperate situations. Then theres the fact
that this is happening at a time of economic difficulty in the West, with growing disparities across
society and some people already having to resort to charity to feed themselves. The connection here
with health is significant. Cheap food tends to be low in protein and high in carbohydrate, which is
exactly the wrong balance for a healthy society. By reducing food to a mere commodity, we have
created a system that is degrading the global capacity to continue to produce food, and is fuelling a
global epidemic of diabetes and related chronic disease. Obesity in the US cost 150 billion dollars 20%
of the health budget - in 2008, the latest figures available, and this huge cost will rise as the broken food
system takes its toll.
Why is the food system broken?
The big picture is that the amount of land per person has been shrinking over the last 100 years: we now
have about a quarter of a hectare per person on the planet and were using half of the total land area on
the globe for agriculture. If you think of that little quarter hectare, were asking more of it than ever
before, largely because of population and the modern diet, which is totally inappropriate. Governments
have not got this right. Were subsidising unsustainable food production systems at the cost of our
health and our environment. Soil is not costed into food, which means that farmers dont have the
financial capacity to invest in their soil to turn the situation around. Crop breeding is exacerbating this
situation. Modern wheat varieties, for example, have half the micronutrients of older strains, and its
pretty much the same for fruit and vegetables. The focus has been on breeding high-yield crops which
can survive on degraded soil, so its hardly surprising that 60% of the worlds population is deficient in
nutrients like iron. If its not in the soil, its not in our food.

Coming food shortages guarantee conflict and extinction comparatively the
largest risk to the planet
Cribb 2010 Julian Cribb, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences
and Engineering, 2010 (The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It,
p. 10)
The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more wars have been triggered
by disputes over food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic differences. This should not
surprise US: people have fought over the means of survival for most of history. But in the abbreviated
reports on the nightly media, and even in the rarefied realms of government policy, the focus is almost
invariably on the playersthe warring national, ethnic, or religious factionsrather than on the play,
the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite conflict. Caught up in these are groups of ordinary,
desperate people fearful that there is no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their children
and believing that they must fight the others to secure them. At the same time, the number of
refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and famines precipitated by food
and resource shortages. Governments in troubled regions tottered and fell. The coming famine is
planetary because it involves both the immediate effects of hunger on directly affected populations in
heavily populated regions of the world in the next forty yearsand also the impacts of war,
government failure, refugee crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will affect all human beings,
no matter who they are or where they live. It is an emergency because unless it is solved, billions will
experience great hardship, and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy, one of the worlds most
progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and South America,
succinctly summed it all up: Global warming gets all the publicity but the real imminent threat to the
human race is starvation on a massive scale. Taking a 1030 year view, I believe that food shortages,
famine and huge social unrest are probably the greatest threat the human race has ever faced. I believe
future food shortages are a far bigger world threat than global warming.2 The coming famine is also
complex, because it is driven not by one or two, or even a half dozen, factors but rather by the
confluence of many large and profoundly intractable causes that tend to amplify one another. This
means that it cannot easily be remedied by silver bullets in the form of technology, subsidies, or
single-country policy changes, because of the synergetic character of the things that power it.

OTEC Solves
First, Aquaculture:
Fisheries are fully exploited now. Fish farming is the most efficient solution, but
it relies on OTEC for nutrient-rich Deep Ocean Water. The technology exists
now.
Golmen et al 5 Lars G. Golmen, NIVA, Norwegian Institute for Water research, Stephen M.
Masutani, Associate Researcher with the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii,
member of the team at the Pacific International Center for High Technology, Kazuyuki Ouchi, Ouchi
Ocean Consultant, 2005 (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and the Next Generation Fisheries, World
Renewable Energy Congress, edited by M. S. Imbabi and C. P. Mitchel, http://www.rundecentre.no/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/Article-OTEC-NGF-WREC-conference-2005.pdf)
Recent studies by a number of organizations, including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations and the Pew Ocean Commission, have concluded that the worlds commercial marine
fisheries are currently fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted. As shown in the example given in
Figure 2, capture fisheries production has declined in many regions. Global marine catches peaked at 80
million tonnes in the late 1980s. Per capita availability of fishery products has declined from 15 kg a
year in the late 1980s to 12 kg presently (Clers and Nauen, 2002). While traditional fish farming can, up
to a point, fulfill the demand, it relies heavily on feed made from fish and other marine species. This
serves to contribute to the decimation of the natural marine protein pool. Moreover, fish farming also
poses some serious environmental threats, e.g., escape of farmed species and spread of disease into the
wild population, even if farms are moved to offshore (Dalton, 2004). Figure 1. Schematic of an OTEC
plant and the products, also including aquaculture and biomass (the NGF concept). From a feeding
perspective, fish farming can be very efficient. Salmon, which has the best feed conversion ratio, need
1.15 kg of feed (dry weight) to produce 1 kg of salmon. In comparison, poultry requires 1.94 kg feed and
pigs need 3 kg feed to achieve equivalent growth. In spite of this relative efficiency, it is believed that
marine feed stocks (krill, small herring, capelin, etc) are already overexploited so there is no potential
for increased production following conventional approaches. To circumvent this barrier without
applying additional pressure to increasingly vulnerable marine environment, an alternative approach has
been proposed to enhance natural fish stocks locally. Organizations in Japan, the USA, and Norway have
initiated efforts to advance this Next generation Fisheries (NGF) concept (Takahashi, 2004). The key
factor for feed production in NGF is the utilisation of nutrient rich Deep Ocean Water (DOW) that has
been pumped to the surface for use as a thermal sink in OTEC. After passing through the OTEC system,
the DOW will be warmed by 5-10C. Typically, this still cold water is mixed with the effluent warm
surface water before being discharged below the surface to minimize thermal pollution. Since the
effluent DOW has high nutrient content (nitrates, phosphates and silicates) compared to surface waters,
it has great potential for enhanced production of biomass by photosynthesis. DOW fertilization is the
same mechanism that drives new production following natural, wind driven ocean upwelling that occurs
along the continental margins, which enhances primary production that sustains fisheries (e.g., offshore
Chile). In fact, DOW from OTEC is expected to have higher nutrient levels than the naturally upwelled
water that originates from shallower depths corresponding to the thermocline. Figure 2. Catch of
common fish stocks in the North Atlantic, 1986-2002. The effectiveness of using DOW to enhance local
fish stocks depends on the ability to retain the nutrients at appropriate concentrations in the euphotic
zone for a long period of time relative to the photosynthetic timescales. Cold DOW is more dense than
the ambient surface sea water and will descend unless it is heated or diluted sufficiently. Several
strategies to implement artificial upwellings have been designed and some are currently being tested
(Ouchi and Ohmura, 2004). The rationale of integrating OTEC and mariculture is that the OTEC cycle can
provide the power required to bring up large volumes of DOW with a net surplus of electricity which
can, in turn, be sold or used for other fisheries operations or to produce marketable by-products.
Zooplankton will feed on the algae, and in turn become feed for herbivorous fish downstream in the
plant. Herbivorous fish (like tilapia) can feed directly on the algae. Alternatively, the agae biomass can
be converted by biodegradation to useful products like metane. Figure 3 shows an outline of the
OTEC/NGF principle. The NGF concept has been studied for some time, and designs have been proposed
(Takahashi 2004). In October, 2004, the Japanese Ministy of fisheries hosted a meeting on NGF between
representatives from Japan, USA and Norway, with the aim to boost development of the NGF concept,
preferrably in several countries. The meeting set up the priorities for further development, where the
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research (PICHTR) in Hawaii may become the
coordinator. Priority number one is to secure funding for a joint, multilateral project involving the
present partnership as well as newcomers, including maritime industry. Especially the offshore industry
is now expected to possess skills and technologies that are suitable for building full-scale OTEC and NGF
plants. The potential of OTEC in combination with the Next Generation Fisheries (NGF) concept has a
great potential for providing large quantities of food and renewable energy in a sustainable manner.
Both designs can work well on a stand-alone basis, but the combination as described in this overview
should be seriously considered as it constitutes a win-win concept. There are challenges ahead both on
the technical, biological and possibly on the environmental side, but recent assessments suggests these
can be met. As prices for energy and food continue to rise, the OTEC/NGF concept will soon cross the
break-even line to become a profitable industry. As the global surface ocean warms due to climate
change, the vertical temperature gradient will increase and thus the area of interest to OTEC/NGF will
expand. However, the candidate countries for the first installations will probably be located in the
tropical or subtropical region, with the small island states in the Pacific Ocean and south Asia as
particularly interesting. The recent initiative taken by Japan, USA and Norway to form a consortium for
enhanced R&D on the NGF should be supported by the governments as well as by international
organisations dealing with global sustainable development.
Declining fish stocks escalate prices for billions of low-income individuals. That
exacerbates income inequality and causes widespread deaths.
Normile 2 Dennis Normile, Contributing Correspondent, Tokyo, for Science Magazine, 2002 (Poor to
Feel Pinch of Rising Fish Prices, Science, November, Volume 298, Number 5596, DOI: 10.1126,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5596/1154.full)
TOKYO The first major attempt to project global supply and demand for fish has confirmed what many
have long suspected: Rising prices are likely to drive fish out of the reach of growing numbers of poor
people who rely on the sea for their protein. But, with several fisheries on the verge of collapse, some
analysts believe that the study's dire projectionspresented last week at the launching of a global
research initiative on fisheries science and policymight in fact be too rosy. The analysis, by agricultural
economists in Penang, Malaysia, and in Washington, D.C., models fish supply and demand to 2020.
Under the most likely scenario, it says, prices for salmon and other high-value fish would rise 15%, and
prices for low-end fish such as milkfish and carp would increase by 6%. Fish meal prices, it estimates,
would jump 18% to satisfy rising demand for feed for cultured, carnivorous high-value fish (below). The
consequences [of current trends] could be dire, depending on whether supply gains are feasible, says
Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, a co-author of the study, which was done by the Penang-based WorldFish Center
and the Washington, D.C.-based International Food Policy Research Institute. But a continuation of
those gainswhich have produced a sixfold rise in total fish catch since the 1950sis doubtful, says his
boss, center director Meryl Williams, because three-quarters of the current catch comes from fish stocks
that are already overfished, if not depleted. Those *who study+ the population dynamics of fisheries
would probably be pessimistic about supplies, she says. Fish now account for about 7% of the total
food supply, according to the center, and are the primary source of protein for roughly one-sixth of the
world's population. Yet fish consumption is generally overlooked in food supply models, which focus
primarily on cereals and legumes. Scientists hope to correct that oversight with Fish for All, an initiative
to develop science-based policy alternatives for world fisheries. Scientists, environmentalists, and
industry representatives from 40 countries gathered in Penang last week for a meeting to launch the
effort, led by the WorldFish Center, formerly known as the International Center for Living Aquatic
Resources. Both the fish center and the policy institute are part of the World Bank-funded Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research.
OTEC facilitates the creation of the Ultimate Ocean Ranch, which provides a
sustainable solution to overfishing and rehabilitates collapsing aquaculture
systems
Matsuda et al 98 Fujio Matsuda, Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, Tom
Tsurutani, Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, James P. Szyper, University of
Hawaii, Patrick Takahashi, retired Professor of Engineering and Director of the Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute at the University of Hawaii, former vice president for development of the Pacific International
Center for High Technology Research, 1998 (THE ULTIMATE OCEAN RANCH, IEEE,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=724382)
Significant expansion of global food supply is an inevitable necessity; it will require productive use of
untapped resources. World capture fishery landings increased through the 1980s, but have since leveled
near 90 million metric tons per year, the long-forecast maximum sustaic- able yield. Landings have thus
failed to increase with population and demand, and have declined on a per capita basis. Approximately
two-thirds of the 200 important commercially fished stocks are fully or over-exploited. Many marine
fisheries have been depleted, some to the point of economic extinction of the stocks, others having
been closed in hope of recovery. Aquaculture now contrib- utes substantially (~20%) to global aquatic
food production, with more than two-thirds of the harvest derived from fresh waters in Asia. Total
annual production of fish and shellfish is slightly in excess of 100 million tons (FAO, 1998). New
advancements of impact similar to the Green Revolution and the ongoing expansion of aquaculture will
be required if the food problem is to remain short of catastrophic. Land use for terrestrial food
production competes with maintenance of forests, with potential consequences to the global oxygen
cycle. Expansion of aquaculture remains dependent on feeds containing fish meal protein derived from
fully exploited capture fisheries. The substantial increases of recent decades in aquaculture production
have not been sufficient to outpace population growth and demand, nor thus to prevent declining total
(capture plus culture) per capita production of aquatic food products and the consequent price
increases. Even with a presumption of future consensus on global food policy, there remains a limit to
the potential for production of food protein on the earth. Maximizing production rate would require
rapid and efficient recycling of limiting nutrient elements. This condition cannot be attained by human
agency because natural systems, both forests and the open sea, sequester organic matter in detrital
pools (forest litter and soil, deep sea detritus) having long residence times and absolute regeneration
rates insufficient for significant expansion of production. Accessing the nutrients of the deep sea, on the
other hand, is a potential means of expanding production of food protein with neutral or favorable
impact on oxygen and carbon cycles, and a longer term of sustainability. The end-point vision of the
Ultimate Ocean Ranch described here is one of intentional human geochemical impact: biological
productivity of open sea areas will be enhanced through artificial upwelling of nutrient-rich subsurface
seawater into the photic zone; food fishes and other products will be derived by integrated
management of the "floating grazing platforms," which create the upwell- ing, at the final stage by
means of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), thus bringing into productive use the cold deep
water underlying the unproductive but vast subtropical seas. Ancillary benefits include potentially
enhanced carbon dioxide sequestration (detritus from new food chains will sink beneath the photic
zone), net oxygen production in the photic zone, and cooling of the ocean surface over significant
geographical areas which could mollify storm formation (NSF/JSTA, 1990; Takahashi, 1996). The required
information base required for critical evaluation of the complete concept does not now exist.
Intermediate stages will yield useful increments of food from untapped nutrient resources and generate
the informa- tion base.
United States-owned OTEC and aquaculture is necessary markets,
infrastructure, legal framework, and expertise
Yoza et al 10 Brandon A. Yoza, Hawaii National Energy Institute, Grard C. Nihous, Associate
Professor at the University of Hawaii, Patrick Takahashi, retired Professor of Engineering and Director of
the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii, former vice president for development
of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, Lars G. Golmen, NIVA, Norwegian
Institute for Water research, Jan C. War, operations manager for the Natural Energy Laboratory of
Hawaii Authority, Koji Otsuka, Department of Material Chemistry, Graduate School of Engineering,
Kyoto University, Kazuyuki Ouchi, Ouchi Ocean Consultant, Stephen M. Masutani, Associate Researcher
with the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii, member of the team at the Pacific
International Center for High Technology, 2010 (Deep Ocean Water Resources in the 21st Century,
Marine Technology Society Journal, Volume 44, Number 3, May/June, p.80-87)
Yoza et al 10Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (Brandon A., Grard C. Nihous, Patrick. K. Takahashi,
Lars G. Golmen, Jan C. War, Koji Otsuka, Kazuyuki Ouchi, Stephen M. Masutani, May-June 2010, MARINE
TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY JOURNAL, Volume 44, Issue 3 , pp 80-87, Deep Ocean Water Resourcesin the
21st Century, rmf)
***Note: AU=artificial upwelling
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the worlds commercial
marine fisheries are currently fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted. Furthermore, anticipated
population growth suggests that the demand for seafood will double by the year 2025. Presently,
worldwide consumption of all animal products is 566 mmt per year, of which the oceans contribute only
12.1% from capture fisheries and less than 1% of our plant-derived food or fiber. Yet they cover over
two thirds of the Earths surface and contain 97% of its water (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA], 2008). The expected increase in global meat supply between 1993 and 2030 is
more than the present total worldwide production of all seafood from capture fisheries and is more
than twice that of global aquaculture production. Presently, it is estimated that offshore or true open
ocean aquaculture contributes no more than about 20,000 mt per year of the 42 mmt produced by
aquaculture worldwide and is unlikely to increase to more than 2 mmt by 2030. This does not mean it
will never be more significant, but to reach its full potential, development of offshore aquaculture will
take more than 25 years (NOAA, 2008). Although conventional mariculture both coastal and
offshorecan increase the availability of marketable fin and shellfish (Kirke, 2003; Mckinley and
Takahashi, 1991;Othmer andRoels, 1973; Paul et al., 1978; Pshenichnyj and Vershinskij, 1985; Rodde et
al., 1976; Roels et al., 1980), it often comes at the expense of continued depletion of less popular wild
species used for feed. AU, on the other hand, has the potential to revitalize depleted fish stocks at all
levels. To justify private investment in AU, means need to be developed to ensure that investors are
guaranteed sufficient rights of harvest. This may be problematic because AU seeks to enhance entire
ecosystems and therefore its benefits will likely be dispersed over large regions of ocean and will not be
easily managed. New regulations to limit fishing access in AU zones may also need to be considered.
These issues probably will not be of significant concern for public-funded AU initiatives conducted within
a countrys EEZ. An alternative involves the integration of AU with offshore mariculture. The United
States presents a number of advantages for offshore aquaculture production:
huge area in which to farm(the U.S. EEZ)
well-developed coastal infrastructure
strong home market
excellent fresh and frozen food distribution systems
high-value niche markets for fresh, whole, live, eco-label, or certified products
educated workforce and people with excellent animal husbandry skills
U.S.-produced feed ingredients
strong property laws
leading offshore aquaculture equipment designers and manufacturers
strong research and extension capabilities
Using AU for enhanced productivity, the presence of a physical structure to build containment
structures from and power production through OTEC can offset the costs of feed, construction, and
energy (NOAA, 2008).
Second, Phytoplankton OTEC increases nutrient input to euphotic zones,
which facilitates increased plankton production. Thats key to the entire food
chain.
Avery and Wu 94 William H. Avery, Propulsion Research Laboratory, holds a Ph.D. in Physical
Chemistry from Harvard, Chih Wu, Professor of Mechanical Engineering U.S. Naval Academy, 1994
(Renewable Energy From the Ocean: A Guide to OTEC, John Hopkins University, Applied Physics
Laboratory Series, p. 425-27)
Gains of plankton organisms may result some distance away from the OTEC plant as a result of
increased nutrient input to euphotic zones that are associated with the shoaling of isopycnal and
nutricline. Since plankton is important in the marine food chain, enhanced productivity due to
redistribution of nutrients may improve fishing. Fish, which in general are attracted to offshore
structures, are expected to increase their ambient concentration near OTEC plants. The world annual
yield of marine fisheries is presently 70 million tons, with most fish caught on continental shelves. In
fact, the open ocean (90% of the total ocean area) produces only about 0.7% of the fish because most of
the nutrients in the surface water are extracted by plants and drift down to the ocean floor in the
remains of plant or animal life. The water in the coastal zones is continually supplied with fresh nutrients
in the runoff from the adjacent land and, hence, supports a high level of plant life activity and produces
54% of the fish. Only 0.1 % of the ocean area lies in the upwelling regions, where nutrient-laden water is
brought up from the ocean depths, yet these regions produce 44% of the fish The reason for this
spectacular difference can be seen in Table 9-9, which shows that the nitrate and phosphorus
concentrations in deep seawater are about 150 and 5 times more, respectively, than their counterpart
concentrations in surface water at a typical site (St. Croix in the Virgin Islands). Proposals to produce
artificial upwelling, including one using nuclear power, have concluded that the cost would be excessive.
Roels (1980) studied the possibility of using a shore-based OTEC plant to supply nutrient-laden water to
a mariculture system, with a series of experiments carried out at St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. At
that site the ocean is 1000 m deep only 1.6 km offshore. Three polyethylene pipelines, 6.9 em in
diameter and 1830 m long, have brought approximately 250 liters/min of bottom water into 5-m3 pools
where diatoms from laboratory cultures are grown. The food-laden effluent flows through metered
channels to pools where shellfish are raised. The resulting protein production rate was excellent; 78% of
the inorganic nitrogen in the deep seawater was converted to phytoplankton-protein nitrogen, and 22%
of that was converted to clam-meat protein nitrogen. This compares with plant-protein/animal-protein
conversion ratios of31 % for cows' milk production and 6.5% for feedlot beef production. The
production of seafood is therefore more efficient than that of beef. Thus, shifts from beef to seafood,
already underway in some societies for health reasons, could help to meet world needs for high-quality
food. Net gains of plankton organisms may result some distance away from the OTEC plant as a result
of increased nutrient input to the euphotic zone associated with the shoaling of isopycnal and nutricline.
Increased harvests of small oceanic fish, which feed on plankton, would result.
Third, Water A water crisis is inevitable and escalates because of irrigation
needs. OTEC solves by producing voluminous quantities of desalinated water.
Reject deadly short term-focus risk assessments.
Greenberg, 13 James Greenberg, Chief sustainability officer for the Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation and civil law lawyer and former member of The Board of Governors of the Pennsylvania
Association for Justice, 2013 ( Water Wars: An Unpleasant Fact, Empower the Ocean, Ocean Thermal
Energy Corporation, December 26
th
, http://empowertheocean.com/water-wars/)
There are some facts we all would rather not think about, particularly those that force us to face
unpleasant truths. One of those facts is that there are places in the world today where the need for
people to share limited fresh water supplies is causing conflict. The south Indian states of Kerala and
Tamil Nadu are two of these places. As described by T.P. Sreenivasan, former ambassador of India, in
the The New York Times, If Kerala and Tamil Nadu were independent countries with their own armies,
they might have been at war by now over the water held behind a dam in Kerala that supplies Tamil
Nadu.According to Sreenivasan, Protests and demonstrations have lasted for more than five years and
tensions have been so elevated recently that some citizens have resorted to violence as Indias federal
government, for the most part, has watched helplessly. According to the United Nations (UN Works-For
People and the Planet/The Global Water Crisis), this problem could accelerate dramatically in the next
two decades: Today, 800 million people live under a threshold of water stress. As rivers dry up, lakes
shrink and groundwater reserves get depleted, that figure will rise up to 3 billion in 2025, especially in
parts of Asia and Africa. Cooperation Across Borders Pointing to the path of solutions, UN Works gives
this admonition: Water is ultimately a shared resource. Two-fifths of humanity lives in river and lake
basins that lie within two or more countries. Tied together in a web of interdependence, these societies
can either suffer from increasing political conflicts or benefit from cooperation. The choice of
cooperation calls to our higher selves. We have available, the means to implement cooperative efforts
through technologies that can produce voluminous quantities of fresh water. One of these technologies
is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). By tapping into the natural and sustainable bounty from
our oceans, Ocean Thermal Energy Plants use the temperature differential between warm ocean surface
water and cold deep water to create baseload (24/7) renewable energy. This same energy can then be
used to power attached desalination plants -water purification systems that move salt and effluent
materials from water molecules to produce fresh drinking water. So the choice really is ours.
Management by Forethought or Crisis? With that choice clearly facing us today, the pressing question
becomes, Do we manage escalating global water shortages now by thoughtful foresight and planning,
including a strong move toward more renewable energies such as Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC),or, do we wait for the inevitable and predictable, in which case we will manage by crisis?
Short-termism can be deadly. Responsible citizens lives by the sound principle that some measure of
advanced long-term planning is wise in their financial and personal affairs. We would certainly expect
the same thinking from our business and political leaders. Fortunately, Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation (OTE) embraces this way of thinking. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion utilizes the worlds
most abundant resource that covers 71% of the Earths surface to create clean, fresh drinking water. By
globally commercializing this technology as one major solution to the worlds water crisis, Ocean
Thermal Energy Corporation is taking action today to help create a cleaner, more peaceful tomorrow for
our children and grandchildren.
1AC Leadership
1AC Leadership
The race for OTEC is on the winning nation gains a substantial early market,
massive industrial boost, and global diplomatic prestige
Cohen and Ladouch 2k12
(Robert Cohen, USA, OTEC consultant and adviser to the company Lockheed Martin, Mathieu Ladouch
Renewable Energy Engineer and Energy Expert, Development & execution manager at Marine Energy
Times Mechanical Engineer (TIDAL ENERGY) at HYDRO-GEN Project Manager Engineer at Deschamps
Mechanical or Industrial Engineering Ocean Thermal Energy Ocean OTEC could soon be used?, pg
online @ http://www.marineenergytimes.com/could-otec-soon-be-used-partii-in-the-midst-of-
international-competition.html)
There is currently the possibility of a competition among industrial nations (especially France, China,
Japan, and the USA) to be the first to successfully demonstrate the viablity of generating electricity from
ocean thermal energy aboard a utility-scale, multi-megawatt pilot plant. However, it is likely that any
such competition will be between private investors rather than between governments. Once such an
ocean thermal pilot plant is deployed and successfully generates net power, operational data from that
plant can be quickly incorporated into the design of an initial tranche of commercial plants, probably
sized at around 100 MWe. METimes : What are the advantages of the winning nation? RC : There is a
large early market eagerly awaiting such plants; namely, at island locations around the world where
electricity generated by even the first-of-a-kind commercial ocean thermal plants will likely be cost-
competitive with oil-derived electricity. That early global market to displace oil can probably quickly
absorb an initial ocean thermal capacity of 2,000 MWe or more just in Hawaii and Puerto Rico ,
amounting to a total investment of around $20 B in U.S. plants alone. The commercial prize awaiting the
first industrial nation to lead in achieving the above will be to favorably position it to launch mammoth
new ocean and power industries. In addition, that nation will gain considerable diplomatic prestige,
because it will be able to provide commercial ocean thermal technology to about 80 countries -- most of
which are developing nations that have good ocean thermal resources adjacent to their shores and
who want to reduce their dependence on oil imports.
Winning the race is especially crucial for the US. The plan builds broader
technological leadership and prevents Chinas rise.
Moore and Krock 14, Bill Moore is a writer. Dr. Hans Jurgen Krock has a PhD in Civil and
Environmental Engineering with minors in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering from the University of
California at Berkeley. Krock is a registered Professional Engineer (Civil) in Hawaii, served as PI for
numerous research projects at UH for twenty five years covering all aspects of ocean engineering, ocean
dynamics, water quality, OTEC, and environmental effects, holds two US Patents related to gas exchange
dynamics and open cycle OTEC, received letters of recognition from two Governors of Hawaii, served as
visiting professor at two foreign universities. (OTEC Resurfaces,
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1008&first=6096&end=6095, 1/24/2014) Kerwin
"This is a transformation of endeavors from land to the ocean. The world is 70 percent oceans, 30
percent [land]... which we have used up to a large extent. The only major resource we have left is the
ocean. This is a mechanism to utilize the ocean." "We do not have the luxury of waiting far into the
future because I am sure you have read peak oil is coming... Unless we do this now, a transformation of
this magnitude takes time. We have to allocate at least 50 years to do this, but that means we have to
start now, because in fifty years we won't have the luxury of having another energy source to let us do
the construction for these things. "The United States is the best placed of any country in the world to
do this," he contends. "The United States is the only country in the world of any size whose budget for
its navy is bigger than the budget for its army." It's his contention that this will enable America to
assume a leadership position in OTEC technology, allowing it to deploy plants in the Atlantic, Caribbean
and Pacific, but he offers a warming. "If we are stupid enough not to take advantage of this, well then
this will be China's century and not the American century." Krock is currently negotiating with the U.S.
Navy to deploy first working OTEC plant offshore of a British-controlled island in the Indian Ocean --
most likely Diego Garcia though he wouldn't confirm this for security purposes. He is also working with
firms in Britain and Netherlands and will be headed to China for talks with the government in Beijing.
"The Chinese know very well that they cannot build there futures on oil," he stated, noting that China's
is investing large sums of money in a blue water navy. "The United States will be playing catch-up in
this technology. We're here. We're willing to do it. We're doing it with the Navy." He expects to put his
first plant to sea sometime in 2008 after constructing it, mostly likely, in Singapore. "We simply have to
look at the all the alternatives [to conventional fossil fuels and nuclear power] and this is, hands down,
the only alternative that's big enough to replace oil."
Chinas rise risks war with the U.S. and threatens kicking the U.S. out of Asia.
John Mearsheimer, January 2005. Professor of political science at the University of Chicago,
Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2740.
China cannot rise peacefully, and if it continues its dramatic economic growth over the next few
decades, the United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with
considerable potential for war. Most of Chinas neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South
Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, will likely join with the United States to contain Chinas power. To predict
the future in Asia, one needs a theory that explains how rising powers are likely to act and how other
states will react to them. My theory of international politics says that the mightiest states attempt to
establish hegemony in their own region while making sure that no rival great power dominates another
region. The ultimate goal of every great power is to maximize its share of world power and eventually
dominate the system. The international system has several defining characteristics. The main actors are
states that operate in anarchywhich simply means that there is no higher authority above them. All
great powers have some offensive military capability, which means that they can hurt each other.
Finally, no state can know the future intentions of other states with certainty. The best way to survive in
such a system is to be as powerful as possible, relative to potential rivals. The mightier a state is, the less likely it is that another
state will attack it. The great powers do not merely strive to be the strongest great power, although that is a welcome outcome. Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemonthe only great power
in the system. But it is almost impossible for any state to achieve global hegemony in the modern world, because it is too hard to project and sustain power around the globe. Even the United
States is a regional but not a global hegemon. The best outcome that a state can hope for is to dominate its own backyard. States that gain regional hegemony have a further aim: to prevent
other geographical areas from being dominated by other great powers. Regional hegemons, in other words, do not want peer competitors. Instead, they want to keep other regions divided
among several great powers so that these states will compete with each other. In 1991, shortly after the Cold War ended, the first Bush administration boldly stated that the United States was
now the most powerful state in the world and planned to remain so. That same message appeared in the famous National Security Strategy issued by the second Bush administration in
September 2002. This documents stance on preemptive war generated harsh criticism, but hardly a word of protest greeted the assertion that the United States should check rising powers
and maintain its commanding position in the global balance of power. China is likely to try to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. Specifically, China
will strive to maximize the power gap between itself and its neighbors, especially Japan and Russia, and to ensure that no state in Asia can threaten it. It is unlikely that China will go on a
rampage and conquer other Asian countries. Instead, China will want to dictate the boundaries of acceptable behavior to neighboring countries, much the way the United States does in the
Americas. An increasingly powerful China is also likely to try to push the United States out of Asia, much the way the
United States pushed the European great powers out of the Western Hemisphere. Not incidentally, gaining regional hegemony is probably the only way that China will get back Taiwan. Why
should we expect China to act differently than the United States? U.S. policymakers, after all, react harshly when other great powers send military forces into the Western Hemisphere. These
foreign forces are invariably seen as a potential threat to American security. Are the Chinese more principled, more ethical, less nationalistic, or less concerned about their survival than
Westerners? They are none of these things, which is why China is likely to imitate the United States and attempt to become a regional hegemon. Chinas leadership and people remember what
happened in the last century, when Japan was powerful and China was weak. In the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi. It is clear from the historical
record how American policymakers will react if China attempts to dominate Asia. The United States does not tolerate peer competitors. As it demonstrated in the 20th century, it is determined
to remain the worlds only regional hegemon. Therefore, the United States will seek to contain China and ultimately weaken it to the point where it is no longer capable of dominating Asia. In
essence, the United States is likely to behave toward China much the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Unchecked Chinese rise causes global nuclear war
Walton 7 C. Dale Walton, Lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University
of Reading, 2007, Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the 21st Century, p. 49
Obviously, it is of vital importance to the United States that the PRC does not become the hegemon of
Eastern Eurasia. As noted above, however, regardless of what Washington does, China's success in such an endeavor is not as easily attainable as
pessimists might assume. The PRC appears to be on track to be a very great power indeed, but geopolitical conditions are not favorable for any Chinese effort
to establish sole hegemony; a robust multipolar system should suffice to keep China in check, even with only minimal American intervention in local squabbles.
The more worrisome danger is that Beijing will cooperate with a great power partner, establishing a very
muscular axis. Such an entity would present a critical danger to the balance of power, thus both
necessitating very active American intervention in Eastern Eurasia and creating the underlying
conditions for a massive, and probably nuclear, great power war. Absent such a "super-threat," however, the demands on
American leaders will be far more subtle: creating the conditions for Washington's gentle decline from playing the role of unipolar quasi-hegemon to being
"merely" the greatest of the world's powers, while aiding in the creation of a healthy multipolar system that is not marked by close great power alliances.
U.S. Tech Leadership is collapsing - thats an existential risk
Dr. Hummell et al 2k12 (Robert Hummel, PhD1,*, Policy Research Division, Potomac Institute for
Policy Studies,, Patrick Cheetham1, Justin Rossi1, Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and
Policy 2012 US Science and Technology Leadership, and Technology Grand Challenges, pg online @
http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol3_g/Hummel_2012_G14-39.pdf //um-ef)
Taken together, there is no direct evidence that the US has been overtaken in quality of S&T output, and most indications support the
notion that the US leads the world in science and technology in all fields. However, the trends are not
favorable to maintenance of this position, and it seems likely that in some fields, US leadership could
falter. When such cross-over might occur, or in what fields, and whether it is inevitable, is uncertain. DoD policy implications While a
gradual decline in US S&T leadership does not provide a Sputnik moment (65),ix it poses no less of an existential
threat. When technical innovations occur in potentially adversarial countries or domains, a strategy
that relies on technological superiority for defense capabilities will no longer suffice. If a potential
adversary can introduce a disruptive technological capability, they can then use deterrence or
influence to control behaviors, compete economically, secure scarce resources, and control
diplomatic agendas The US strategy continues to depend on technological superiority. Thus from a DoD
perspective, it is imperative that the US maintain its position of technological leadership. A Senate Armed
Services Committee (subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities) hearing on the Health and Status of the Defense Industrial
Base and its S&T-related elements (66)xi took place in May 2011, and highlighted some of the issues and potential solution paths. Those
testifying called for a comprehensive strategy for the US to maintain technological leadership well into the 21st century. Many other
specific suggestions were made during that hearing as to ways to support the industrial base and to assist the partnership of DoD and the
defense industrial base to utilize technology advances efficiently. Future prospects Many remedies have been proposed to ensure
continued US technology leadership, in the face of challenges and stresses within the US S&T enterprise. Some of the typical concerns
are overall funding levels, DoD funding for S&T, the efficiency of the application of funds to S&T, and the emphasis of disciplines within
S&T. Other concerns include regulations and impediments to research in S&T, and the production rate of scientists and the career
opportunities. We have noted many of these issues in our survey of elements of the S&T enterprise. The larger concern is over the
respect in which science and technology is held within our society. Since research is an intermediate product, often accomplished years
before product and societal benefits, there is often little appreciation of the role of the researcher and inventor. After World War II,
there was great respect afforded scientists, particularly physicists. Post-Sputnik, there was a deliberate effort to elevate the stature of
science and technology, and the manned space program certainly contributed to societal respect. Some argue that it is because there
has been a precipitous off-shoring of manufacturing that the generation of new ideas has moved overseas (67). Andy Grove of Intel
makes a complementary argument: That as manufacturing moves overseas, American companies lose the knowledge of how to scale up
new ideas to full-scale production (68). Both arguments suggest there are reduced incentives for domestic research as manufacturing
moves elsewhere, and lead to the conclusion that research is best performed by those with familiarity of product production. Thus, they
argue that we need to reinvigorate manufacturing and production for economic vitality so that technology development and leadership
will follow. And, indeed, the nation has an Advanced Manufacturing Initiative, and many cite a resurgence of domestic manufacturing as
incentives normalize to less favor off-shoring. Summing up the landscape The US has the best universities, the most winners of the Nobel
Prize, the best young scientists, and the largest investment in research and development of any nation on earth. So how can it be
that the US is apparently losing its lead in science and technology? The answer isnt that the US has
slowed down, although according to some the rate of technical progress has, indeed, slowed. The fact is that the competition
has discovered the importance of innovation, and has begun to reap rewards from speeding up. We
have seen that China especially is mustering its considerable resources to develop what they call an
innovation economy, but that other nations, as well as Europe, highly value science and engineering,
and implicitly or tacitly have begun to challenge US technology leadership. At the same time, the
globalization of research and ease with which international science collaborations take place
mean that continued US leadership requires full engagement with the international scientific
community. Thus, impediments to exchange of information and bureaucracy in the conduct of US research are counter-productive.
According to Bill Gates, you always have to renew your lead.xii The US has the resources and infrastructure necessary to maintain and
renew a lead in technology. But momentum is not sufficient. In light of concerted efforts in other nations, coasting in science
and technology will jeopardize national security, and also jeopardize the economic and societal
benefits of being first to market with technological innovations. No single agency or entity within the United
States can enact a strategy to renew the technology lead. Instead, continued US technical leadership will require a dedicated and
coordinated effort throughout the society.
1AC Solvency
1AC Solvency
The plan is necessary and sufficient streamlining regulations and eliminating
redundancy makes OTEC commercially viable
Griset 11 --practices law with Preti Flaherty's Energy and Telecommunications Group from the
Augusta, Maine office. Todd frequently represents clients before federal and state regulatory agencies,
and has practiced extensively before theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Maine Public
Utilities Commission, and ISO-New England. Todd is an alumnus of Dartmouth College, where he studied
physics and French literature, earned a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2002, and
a Masters of Environmental Studies from the University of Pennsylvania in 2006. Todd has practiced
with Preti Flaherty since 2002. (Todd L, HARNESSING THE OCEAN'S POWER: OPPORTUNITIES IN
RENEWABLE OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES August 24th 2011, 16 Ocean and Coastal L. Journal. 395,
Lexis)//CS
V. CAN RENEWABLE OCEAN RESOURCES BE COST-COMPETITIVE? Despite the surge of interest in
renewable ocean energy in recent years, some observers are concerned that renewable power,
particularly marine renewable power, will not gain a solid foothold in the electric power sector
because the high capital costs of developing a project mean that such projects will not be cost-
competitive with traditional power sources. Some renewable ocean energy projects may have large
capital requirements due to a combination of factors including the engineering challenges of the
marine environment, technological limitations, and regulatory uncertainty. Although operating
projects can often offset these capital requirements due to their lower operating costs, thanks in large
part to their fuel-free nature, some renewable ocean projects have required that the power be sold at a
relatively high price as compared to [*426] traditional resources like natural gas-fired generation.
Whether renewable ocean energy projects are developed on a commercial scale depends largely on
whether their power can compete in the marketplace. A review of the history of ocean renewable
power technologies suggests that the cost-competitiveness of a given project depends on the details of
the technology and the site involved, as well as on the overall energy economic and regulatory
context into which the project is proposed. A. A Case Study of the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Act The history of interest in the potential of OTEC technology provides an example of how increases in
oil and gas prices lead to heightened interest in marine renewable power, which interest may then
diminish if hydrocarbon fuel prices decline. Interest in OTEC in the late 1970s resulted in the enactment
on August 3, 1980, of the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980 (OTEC Act). n184 Shortly after
the enactment of the OTEC Act, NOAA promulgated proposed regulations to implement the OTEC Act,
n185 and published final regulations in July 1981. n186 While these regulations were designed to attract
investment in and development of OTEC projects, OTEC's technological and financial challenges
resulted in minimal activity under NOAA's regulations. Indeed, fifteen years after their publication,
NOAA had not received any applications for licenses of commercial OTEC facilities or plant ships. n187
NOAA characterized its activity under the OTEC Act as merely "a low level" n188 and "limited to
responding to occasional requests for OTEC related technical and regulatory information." n189 To
explain this unexpected lack of interest in developing our OTEC resources, NOAA pointed to "the
availability and relatively low price of fossil fuels, coupled with the risks to potential investors" as having
"limited the interest in the commercial development of OTEC projects." n190 Following President
Clinton's March 1995 Regulatory Reform Initiative, which directed all agencies to undertake an [*427]
exhaustive review of their regulations and to eliminate those which were obsolete or otherwise in need
of reform, NOAA withdrew its Part 981 regulations altogether. n191 While NOAA's Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management remains responsible for licensing OTEC projects pursuant to the OTEC
Act, NOAA intends to rebuild its OTEC licensing capacity when commercial interest in the technology
returns as oil prices increase again. n192 Because OTEC projects are highly capital-intensive, the
economics of commercial OTEC projects has been called the "main question" associated with the
commercialization of OTEC technologies. n193 In 1985, capital cost estimates for even small OTEC
plants, sized between 10 megawatts and 200 megawatts, ranged from $ 150 million to as high as $ 1
billion (in 1985 dollars), far higher than conventional resources on a cost per unit power basis. n194
Compounding the financial challenges of an OTEC project is the fact that OTEC is still considered a
risky technology when compared to more established electricity generation technologies such as
natural gas combined cycle projects or coal gasification, both in terms of technological capabilities and
regulatory regimes. n195 Regulatory certainty is viewed as essential for projects to secure financing;
to lend or invest capital, bankers must have some degree of certainty that their investment will be
secure against production interruptions due to legal interference. n196 While the OTEC Act did clarify
that NOAA-licensed project developers have certain rights, including the right not to have adjacent
projects interfere with their power production, the fact remains that commercial-scale OTEC has not
yet gained the widespread confidence of investors. The surge of interest in OTEC peaked in the late
1970s and early 1980s when the price of oil reached historic highs. Today's lack of commercial success
with OTEC comes despite a host of rosy predictions three decades ago including that: OTEC electricity
was already competitive in island markets in 1980, n197 OTEC would become cost-competitive [*428]
elsewhere by the mid-1990s, n198 twenty baseload electric OTEC plants would be producing 2,100
megawatts in United States island markets by the year 2000, n199 and that eighteen OTEC ammonia
plantships would produce 9,000 megawatts in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic by 2000. n200 As
the price of oil returned to more moderate levels in the mid-1980s, utilities and investors regained
confidence in the continued cost-effectiveness of oil- and gas-fueled technologies. n201 Even as early as
1985, observers called the future of OTEC "at best cloudy."n202 Recent developments may be
changing the game for OTEC. Due to factors including an increase in the price of oil, the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory now predicts that OTEC may become cost-competitive within five-to-
ten years in markets including the small island nations in the South Pacific and the island of Molokai in
Hawaii, Guam and American Samoa, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific,
Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. n203 In 2006, a project developer announced plans to construct a 1.2
megawatt OTEC plant at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority in Kona, as well as a
subsequent 13 megawatt plant "to be built at an undisclosed ocean location for U.S. military forces."
n204 The project developer predicted net power production from the Kona facility of 800 kilowatts, at a
cost of $ 10 million to $ 15 million, and commercial operations by 2008. n205 Nevertheless, five years
later, this project remains undeveloped. In 2008, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle announced "a 10-
megawatt ocean thermal energy conversion pilot plant, through a partnership between the Taiwan
Industrial Technology Research Institute and Lockheed Martin Corp." n206 Also that year, Lockheed
Martin won a $ 1.2 million contract from the United States Department of Energy to [*429] demonstrate
OTEC technologies in Hawaii, n207 followed by an award of $ 8.12 million in 2009 from the United
States Navy to develop critical OTEC system components and pilot project designs. n208 OTEC may thus
be experiencing a renaissance, as technological improvements drive renewed interest in developing
OTEC projects. Indeed, recent interest has led NOAA's Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
office to begin rebuilding its OTEC licensing capacity. n209 Nevertheless, OTEC projects must be cost-
competitive or otherwise mandated by law to succeed on a commercial scale in the United States. B.
Example of Cape Wind The Cape Wind project provides a more recent look at the economics of
renewable ocean energy. On October 6, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Cape Wind
Associates, LLC President James Gordon signed the nation's first lease pursuant to section 8(p) of the
OCSLA for commercial wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). n210 The project
area offered in the lease is comprised of approximately forty-six square miles (29,425.18 acres) on the
OCS in Nantucket Sound offshore Massachusetts. n211 The project is described as consisting of 130- 3.6
megawatt wind turbine generators set on monopole foundations, "as well as an electric service
platform, inner array cables, and two transmission cables." n212 The thirty-three year lease includes five
years for site assessment, followed by a twenty-eight year term for operations. n213 Pursuant to the
lease, the developer will pay an [*430] annual rental rate of $ 3.00 per acre (i.e. $ 88,278 in annual rent),
plus a 2 to 7 percent operating fee during production, based on an estimate of the value of the power
produced by the project. n214 As a reflection of the new, streamlined permitting process, the lease
provides that pursuant to section 388(d) of EPAct 2005, the developer is required neither to resubmit
documents, nor obtain reauthorization of actions previously authorized by the United States Army Corps
of Engineers or other agencies prior to the date of the enactment of EPAct 2005. n215 With these
approvals secured, Cape Wind became the only offshore wind facility in the United States to reach the
end of its permitting process. Beyond these federal regulatory approvals, Cape Wind needed approval
of one or more power purchase agreements for the sale of its power to a utility. In November 2010, the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) approved a petition filed by utility provider, National
Grid, to enter into a fifteen-year power purchase agreement with Cape Wind for 50 percent of the
project's output. n216 Under the approved contract, National Grid agreed to purchase the project's
energy, capacity, and renewable energy credits at a blended price of $ 187 per megawatt-hours,
escalating annually at 3.5 percent. n217 In the order, the DPU found that the contract was "both cost-
effective and in the public interest." n218 The DPU reached this conclusion despite finding that these
prices were "expensive": The power from this contract is expensive in light of today's energy prices. It
may also be expensive in light of forecasted energy prices--although less so than its critics suggest. There
are opportunities to purchase renewable energy less expensively. However, it is abundantly clear that
the Cape Wind facility offers significant benefits that are not currently available from any other
renewable resource. We find that these benefits outweigh the costs of the project. n219 Indeed, the
DPU concluded that "the most likely range of above-market costs over the fifteen years of the contract,
including consideration of the price suppression effect, is from $ 420 million to $ 695 million." n220
Nevertheless, the DPU concluded that these above-market [*431] costs well exceed the unquantified
benefits of the project. n221 Among the benefits cited by the DPU were that the project would assist
both the utility and the Commonwealth in meeting Massachusetts' statutory renewable energy
requirements and greenhouse gas emission reduction mandates, n222 as well as creating jobs and
enhancing electric reliability in the state. n223 The DPU's approval of the Cape Wind PPA sets the stage
for a new way of evaluating the costs of power produced by ocean renewable energy projects. Under
the DPU's analysis, unquantified project benefits such as enabling the state to meet state-level statutory
renewable mandates and enhancing the local economy by creating jobs can be considered to outweigh
the above-market costs of power from such a project. This analysis is consistent with FERC's conclusion
regarding California's PURPA-based renewable policy, whereby states have the authority to create a
separate tier of avoided cost calculations for renewable power when it is required to satisfy a state
statutory program. n224 If this kind of analysis is adopted by other states, the question of whether
ocean renewable power is cost-competitive will take on a new dimension. Particularly when combined
with specific ocean energy mandates, as in the case of Maine, n225 this may open the door to a cost-
based comparison of ocean energy projects against other projects, as opposed to against natural gas or
coal-fired electric generation. Such a policy would do much to promote the development of ocean
renewable power. IV. CONCLUSION: FURTHER STREAMLINING OF REGULATORY POLICIES WILL
EMPOWER CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE OCEAN ENERGY PROJECTS Whether
renewable ocean energy development will occur in U.S. waters on a commercial scale remains to be
seen. The potential environmental impact of individual units remains largely unknown, let alone the
impacts of build-out and development on a larger scale. n226 The [*432] slate of technologies available
for extracting usable energy from the sea is promising, but most--and particularly those with the
greatest potential--remain in an immature state. As interest in refining these technologies continues,
mechanisms for converting the oceans' energy into usable power are improving in efficiency and cost-
effectiveness. Regulatory regimes applicable to renewable ocean energy continue to evolve as well. For
example, the decision of the Massachusetts DPU to approve Cape Wind's power purchase agreement
with National Grid, and the FERC order approving the concept of a multi-tiered avoided cost rate
structure under which states may establish a higher avoided cost rate for mandated renewable power,
both represent an evolution in the traditional regulation of public utilities. In both cases, regulatory
policy has shifted to favor renewable energy production even though it may initially bear a higher cost
than production from fossil fuel-based resources. These shifts may continue to bring renewable ocean
energy closer to cost-competitiveness or cost-parity with traditional resources. Time will tell whether
the trend toward greater ocean energy development will rise and fall like the tides, as has the trends
responsible for the initial enactment of the OTEC Act, subsequent removal of NOAA's regulations, and
the current resurgence of interest in OTEC, or whether these shifts represent definite progress toward a
new form of energy production. 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.
The plan is the only way to commercialize OTEC federal action is crucial
Elefant 2 -- principal attorney with the Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant. Ms. Elefant served as an attorney-
advisor with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and subsequently as an associate with a
national energy law practice. Ms. Elefant specializes in energy regulatory matters, FERC hydroelectric
licensing, renewable energy development and commercial and appellate litigation and is one of the only
attorneys in the United States who has direct experience in counselling and representing ocean wave
energy developers on permitting, regulatory and contract matters.
(Carolyn, Proposed Strategies for Addressing Regulatory Uncertainty in Ocean Energy Development in
the United States, November 19th 2002, http://www.energycentral.com/articles/article/79)
I. THE REGULATORY BARRIERS TO OCEAN ENERGY DEVELOPERS A. Overview of Regulatory Uncertainty
The foregoing events suggest that presently, there is sufficient confidence in the functionality of
ocean energy technology to warrant further investigation of its potential for commercialization.
However, even if these pilot projects and investigative programs resolve all of the feasibility and
economic concerns about ocean energy, one substantial barrier to commercialization of ocean energy
would still remain: regulatory uncertainty. Regulatory uncertainty refers to those risks inherent in the
obtaining any necessary licenses or permits to construct and operate the project from the appropriate
regulatory authority. Risks exist in the regulatory process because both federal and state licensing or
permitting authorities typically have the option of rejecting a permit application or alternatively,
issuing a permit but including limits on operation or required enhancement measures to mitigate
environmental impacts which can increase the overall cost of the project. In deciding whether to fund
an energy project, investors must factor in the risks associated with licensing a project and will decline
investment where there is considerable uncertainty that a project can or will be licensed on favorable
terms. Indeed, regulatory uncertainty explains why nuclear power plants have long been regarded as an
unappealing investment: given strong public opposition and stringent licensing requirements, the
chances of a nuclear project obtaining a license which does not include onerous operating and
mitigating conditions are slim. B. Why Ocean Energy Projects Carry Regulatory Uncertainty For a variety
of reasons, ocean energy projects carry with them a higher degree of regulatory uncertainty than
conventional energy projects. These reasons include: Overlapping or unknown jurisdictional issues
and requirements Most conventional energy projects such as fossil fuel, natural gas and even wind
farms are subject to well established state siting and/or zoning laws applied by state regulatory bodies
while development of most hydro power plants has been regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ( FERC) for the past seventy five years. By contrast, it is unclear which regulatory agencies
will have primary jurisdiction over ocean energy projects (with the exception of OTEC projects which
are regulated by NOAA, pursuant to the OTEC Act). Consider the following myriad of possibilities:
Projects which will be sited up to three miles from shore are technically on state lands per the
Submerged Lands Act which vests states with control and title over those lands. 43 U.S.C. sec.
1301(a)(2). Arguably then, states would have primary regulatory jurisdiction through state power
plant siting and coastal development statutes At the same time, even for projects located on state
lands, federal interests in navigation are implicated and as a result, even projects regulated by the
state would likely still require various permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. To throw another
wrench into the equation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over hydro
power projects located on navigable and commerce clause waterways. 16 U.S.C. sec. 817. Several
statutes define navigable waters as including waters within the three mile limit from shore while ocean
projects could be classified as hydro power since they utilize water to generate electricity. Thus, FERC is
another possible candidate for permitting or licensing ocean projects and indeed, has issued
preliminary permits to study wave power projects. See Passamadquoddy Tribal Council, 11 FERC para.
62,236 (1980)(permit for tidal project near Cobscook Bay); Quantum Energy orders supra. For projects
beyond the three mile limit from shore, i.e., on the Outer Continental Shelf, the Corps of Engineers
retains permitting authority under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, as extended by Section 4(d)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C.A. sec 1331-56. Indeed, as discussed earlier,
the Corps is currently processing a permit for an offshore windfarm located five miles off the coast of
Cape Cod, Massachusetts. However, the Secretary of Interior, through the Mineral Management Service
(MMS) has long had administered the oil and gas leasing and production program on the Outer
Continental Shelf and arguably, has more expertise over ocean based energy projects than the Corps of
Engineers. Variety in Types of Ocean Energy Projects In contrast to conventional technologies which
can fall into more definite categories, e.g., coal, gas, hydro, there are a huge variety of projects which
fall roughly within the rubric of ocean energy. These include OTEC, tidal power, wave energy systems
employing pneumatic devices such as the Wells turbine; current energy which might employ slow
moving turbines designed to operate in low head rivers and even offshore wave projects or hybrid wind-
wave projects. The location of an ocean energy project - i.e., at shoreline, within three miles from
shore or beyond three miles, depends upon the technology employed and thus, it might be impossible
for one regulatory body to have jurisdiction over all ocean projects based on the existing parameters
just discussed. Lack of Information as to Regulatory Standards Even after resolving which agency has
regulatory responsibility over ocean energy projects, another unknown is what types of regulatory
standards these agencies will apply to evaluate ocean energy projects? These agencies may decide
that existing permitting regulations (which may either apply a broad public interest standard or
establish specific criteria for reviewing environmental impacts, economic feasibility, etc...) suffice to
evaluate ocean energy projects. Or the agencies may determine that ocean energy development, with
an unproven track record, unknown impacts and questionable permanence (e.g., how long will the
projects last in a harsh ocean environment?) could require additional regulations which would require
more extensive studies on environmental impacts or the implementation of a decommissioning plan.
C. Why Regulatory Uncertainty, if Left Unresolved, Will Present Problems The problem of regulatory
uncertainty, if left unresolved, will stand as a major impediment to ocean energy development and
commercialization for the reasons listed below: Questions about which agency has authority to
license ocean energy projects can contribute to turf wars amongst agencies and lead to a duplicative
and confusing application process where a developer must submit several permit applications and
possibly be subject to competing conditions for operation and mitigating impacts. Overlap between
agencies thus leads to increased development cost and delay. Opponents of ocean energy projects
can use regulatory uncertainty to their advantage to oppose a project by arguing that a particular
regulatory agency lacks jurisdiction over the project. Jurisdictional questions can be taken all the way
to the courts which could agree with project opponents and conclude that an agency lacked
jurisdiction, thereby rendering the entire permit process a waste. Lack of regulatory standards makes
it impossible to predict whether and on what terms a permit will issue which complicates the
estimation of project costs. Such unpredictability may also deter future private investors from funding
projects. III. PROPOSALS TO RESOLVE REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY IN OCEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
There are several strategies that can be pursued to minimize and possibly eliminate regulatory
uncertainty. They are as follows: In the short run, an ocean energy developer can consult with an
agency as part of a pre-application process to determine the agencys position on permitting. The
developer can also request a more formal Declaratory Ruling or letter of counsel in which the agency
would commit its position on jurisdiction to writing. Agencies with competing jurisdictional claims could
be encouraged to enter into Memoranda of Understanding in which one agency assumes the lead for
processing a permit application for an ocean energy project. Developers should engage in public
outreach and education on the project and perhaps even attempt a collaborative licensing process
whereby those entities with an interest in the project could provide input. Obtaining public cooperation
and support will not directly resolve regulatory uncertainty, but it increases the chances of a project
obtaining a license on favorable terms and deters opponents from taking a hardline and raising
challenges to the projects on jurisdictional grounds. Developers should be prepared to assess the
degree of regulatory uncertainty involved in permitting their particular project and disclose these
possibilities to potential investors (who after all, will discover them anyway through their own due
diligence). Developers might want to offer investors more favorable rates of returns or make other
concessions so as to attract capital but allocate the risk of regulatory uncertainty between the parties.
In the long run, congressional action and legislation might be necessary to more explicitly give the
power to regulate ocean energy projects to either a particular federal agency or to the states. To this
end, studies might be undertaken to determine which agencies are best equipped to handle licensing
of ocean energy projects. IV. CONCLUSION Even as ocean energy projects become technologically
feasible and economically viable, regulatory uncertainty will still hamper successful commercialization
unless this problem is recognized and addressed.
Case Backlines
Hydrogen Economy Advantage
Extension OTEC Solves Hydrogen Economy
OTEC solves hydrogen production, which in turns solves oil dependence.
Muralidharan 2012 (Shylesh Master of Science in Engineering and Management at Pondicherry
University Mechanical Engineering school. Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion 2012
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives.pdf .accessed 6/29/14)
ip.4.1. Hydrogen Hydrogen and oxygen can be produced from pure water by electrolysis by one of the
several industrial processes that have been developed for this purpose. An ocean thermal plant can be
an excellent source of hydrogen, which can be used as fuel or can be used in chemical combination for
other products A 100 MW OIT.C plant would be capable of supplying enough electricity to generate
563.000 m3>'day if hydrogen through commercial off-the-shelf conventional electrolysis equipment.
The hydrogen produced by this conventional process would then be utilized in gas to liquids catalytic
process capable of producing approximately 41.000 gallons of liquid hydrocarbon per day as previously
reported [59] 6.4.2. Methanol Once hydrogen and carbon dioxide have been produced from sea-water,
the next step is to combine them in a catalytic process which produces methanol. Methanol is a valuable
liquid fuel which can be used directly in automobile engines, or can be combined with gasoline to
produce the fuel commonly known as gasohol. Further processes are also available for converting
hydrogen and methanol into hydrocarbons. Therefore, hydrocarbon fuels are also a potential byproduct
from ocean thermal plants.
Extension Produces Enough Energy
The ocean holds more than enough energy to sustain current consumption
levels
Huang et al 3U.S. Department of Energy (Joseph C., Hans J. Krock, Stephen K. Oney, REVISIT OCEAN
THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM)
The ocean covers more than 70.8% of the surface of the earth. A nearly equal fraction of the solar
energy intercepted by the earth falls onto the ocean surface. The sun irradiates and releases an output
of 380 million billion billion Watts (3.8 1026 Watts) and about 175 million billion (1.75 1017Watts)
reaches the earth. Figure 1 shows the annual earth solar energy fluxes in percentile normalized by the
annual total radiated solar energy that reaches the earth. However, not all these energy fluxes can be
transformed into useful form of energy under present available technologies. The current world total
energy consumption, as indicated in the lower right of Figure 1, is about only five thousandth of one
percent (0.005%) of the solar energy flux reaching the earth. It is estimated that the amount of
thermal energy absorbed in the oceans, on an annual basis, is equivalent to at least 1000 times the
total amount of energy presently consumed by human beings over the world (Vega 1995). If only one
percent of the solar energy flux in the equatorial zone is extracted from the thermal potential capacity in
the ocean alone, it can provide hundreds of times more energy than the total current consumption of
electricity. Due to the huge volume and high heat capacity of oceanic water, some rough calculations
reveal that all the energies together in the atmosphere, including kinetic energy in hurricanes and other
storms, are less than the thermal energy in the surface layer at a two and half meter depth in the ocean.
Extension Solves Oil Dependence
Shifts energy dependence away from potentially hostile sources of oil
Cohen 09 -- Dr. Cohen, Senior Program Officer, Energy Engineering Board at National Academy of
Sciences, Program Manager, ocean thermal energy R&D at U.S. Department of Energy, preceded by
ERDA, and NSF, Physicist at U.S. National Bureau of Standards, then ESSA, then NOAA, (Robert,
POTENTIAL MARKETS & BENEFITS OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY November 24th 2009,
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2009/11/25/potential-markets-and-benefits-from-ocean-thermal-
energy/)//CS
Once the Obama Administration and the Congress put ocean thermal R&D back on a fast track, one
that leads to the maturation of this technology within a few years, ocean thermal energy can
foreseeably provide baseload electricity to energize at least three major geographic markets (see the
ocean thermal resource map on the next page) in the following time-frames: 1) An early market to
displace the use of oil, oil that is presently being burned to generate electricity in places like Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and in many developing countries. Places that are relatively accessible to the ocean
thermal resource. Years ago we estimated that that early market could utilize about 50,000 MWe,
which amount would achieve an oil savings of 2 million BBL/day [calculated @ 40 BBL/day per 1
MWe of ocean thermal]. 2) A near-term market for electricity generated (for example) in the Gulf of
Mexico and delivered via submarine cable to the U.S. electrical grid at points on the U.S. Gulf Coast,
such as Key West, Tampa, New Orleans, and Brownsville. This source of baseload electricity could
substantially implement the priority strategies advocated by Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens, which are
aimed at providing renewable energy for propelling vehicles. 3) A potentially vast longer-term
market for products derived from electricity generated aboard a fleet of ocean thermal plantships
grazing on the high seas. Those plantships would convert the baseload electricity (plus air and water)
to energy-intensive products such as hydrogen or ammonia, which could be shipped as energy
carriers or as final products. For example, ammonia could be used as a hydrogen-carrier, combustion
fuel, or for fertilizer. Note that achieving the third option would mean that energy and energy-
products could be shipped to the USA from domestically-owned ocean thermal plantships at
locations that are in many cases closer to our shores than are many of our (often hostile) foreign
sources of imported oil.
Extension Solves Warming
OTEC resolves warming lowers emissions, creates a carbon sink, and addresses
sea level rise
Baird 13 [9/3/13, Jim Baird is a partner in the company, Global Warming Mitigation Method which
uses subductive waste disposal methods for nuclear waste, OTEC Can Be a Big Global Climate
Influence, http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence]
GKoo
Professor James Moum, physical oceanography, Oregon State University, commenting in LiveScience
on the recently published study in the journal Nature Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial
Pacific surface cooling by Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie said, Scientists have known that the eastern
equatorial Pacific Ocean takes in a significant amount of heat from the atmosphere, but this new
study suggests this small portion of the world's oceans could have a big influence on global climate.
As shown in the following diagram, this is the same area, which covers only about 8 percent of the
globe's surface, with the greatest difference between surface water temperatures and those at a
depth of 1000 meters and accordingly it is the best area for producing power by the process of ocean
thermal energy conversion or (OTEC), which could replicate the surface cooling effect identified in
the study that has caused the so called global warming hiatus of the past 15 years.According to the
forthcoming U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the measured rate of warming
during the past 15 years was about 0.09F per decade, which is a decline of over 40 percent from the
1901-2012 average which saw the planet warm by 1.6F or .145F per decade. Since carbon dioxide
concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 370 ppm to 400 ppm during the same period,
the so called global warming hiatus has been seized on by climate change skeptics as evidence the
climate system is less sensitive to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases than previously was
thought. Xie said in the LiveScience piece, "In our model, we were able to show two forces:
anthropogenic forces to raise global average temperature, and equatorial Pacific cooling, which tries
to pull the temperature curve down, almost like in equilibrium," The effect is similar to the El Nio
and La Nia cycles, which are parts of a natural oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system that
occur every three to four years, and can impact global weather and climate conditions, Xie explained.
El Nio is characterized by warmer-than-average temperatures in the waters of the equatorial Pacific
Ocean, while La Nia typically features colder-than-average waters. While global surface
temperatures have not warmed significantly since 1998, other studies have shown that Earth's
climate system continues to warm, with emerging evidence indicating that the deep oceans may be
taking up much of the extra heat. The following diagrams is from a paper World ocean heat content
and thermosteric sea level change (0 2000 m), 1955 2010 by S. Levitus et al.The study estimates
the 0 2000 meter layer of the World Oceans have warmed 0.09 C and if all of that heat was
instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean
warming of 36 C. Conversely a significant amount of surface heat can be moved to the deeper
ocean with OTEC without causing an undue increase in the temperature of the deep water. Kevin
Trenberth and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalyzed ocean
temperature records between 1958 and 2009 and found that about 30 percent of the extra heat has
been absorbed by the oceans and mixed by winds and currents to a depth below about 2,300 feet.
Oceans are well-known to absorb more than 90 percent of the excess heat attributed to climate
change, but its presence in the deep ocean "is fairly new, it is not there throughout the record,"
Trenberth said during a teleconference with NBC reporters in April. To find out why, Trenberths
team used a model that accounts for variables including ocean temperature, surface evaporation,
salinity, winds and currents, and tweaked the variables to determine what causes the warming at
depth. "It turns out there is a spectacular change in the surface winds which then get reflected in
changing ocean currents that help to carry some of the warmer water down to this greater depth,"
Trenberth said. "This is especially true in the tropical Pacific Ocean and subtropics." The change in
winds and currents, he added, appears related to a pattern of climate variability called the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation which in turn is related to the frequency and intensity of the El Nio/La Nia
phenomenon, which impacts weather patterns around the world. The oscillation shifted from a
positive stage to a negative stage at the end of the extraordinarily large El Nio in 1997 and 1998.
The negative stage of the oscillation is associated more with La Nias, which is when the tropical
Pacific Ocean is cooler and absorbs heat more readily, Trenberth explained. "So, some of this heat
may come back in the next El Nio event but some of it is probably contributing to the warming of
the overall planet, the warming of the oceans. It means that the planet is really warming up faster
than we might have otherwise expected," he said. Even with this slowed rate of warming, the first
decade of the 21st century was still the warmest decade since instrumental records began in 1850.
Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at MIT, commenting on the Kosaka/Xie study said with respect to
the prospect of less future warming due to lower climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases, this is the
least consistent prospect with observations, not just of the past decade, but the previous 40 years."
OTEC uses the temperature difference between cooler deep and warmer surface ocean waters to run
a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the form of electricity. It too can have a big
influence on global climate because it converts part of the accumulating ocean heat to work and
about twenty times more heat is moved to the depths in a similar fashion to how Trenberth
suggests the global-warming hiatus has come about. The more energy produced by OTEC done
properly the potential is 30 terawatts - the more the entire ocean will be cooled and that heat
converted to work will not return as will be the case when the oceans stop soaking up global-
warmings excess. Kevin Trenberth estimates the oceans will eat global warming for the next 20
years. Asked if the oceans will come to our climate rescue he said, Thats a good question, and the
answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no. The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat.
Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the
surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest
years on record. Since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes. They
probably cant go for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these
hiatus periods, is suddenly theres a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you
never go back to that previous level again, Trenberth says. The bottom line is global-warming
needs to be put on a permanent hiatus and the world needs more zero emissions energy. OTEC
provides both.

OTEC is an existential imperative 3.5 degree warming is inevitable and only
OTEC can solve positive feedbacks
Baird 14 -- Owner of the company called Global Warming Mitigation Method, claimed by some the
state-of-the-art and most viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste, BS in Chemistry at The
University of Calgary, Works with organizations such as United Nations Sustainable Development,
Environmental Services Professionals in Western Canada, and Aquaculture Projects (Jim, The
Existential Imperative: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion II January 6th 2014,
http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/324161/existential-imperative-ocean-thermal-energy-
conversion-ii)//CS
The fourth IPCC assessment report projects that 40 to 70 percent of species could go extinct if Earth
warms by 3.5C. Ominously, in the light of this projection, a recent study by Australian and French
scientists published in Nature, Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective
mixing, predicts that unless greenhouse gas emissions are cut, the planet will heat up by a minimum
of 4C by 2100 and by more than 8C by 2200. Compounding the bad news, two German scientists
have confirmed the earlier work of a a U.S.-led group that found reducing sunlight by geoengineering
the most widely assumed last line of defence in the face of climate change - will not cool the
planet. It will however disrupt global rainfall patterns. The Australian/French research indicates that
fewer clouds form as the planet warms, meaning less sunlight is reflected back into space, driving
temperatures up further. The way clouds affect global warming has been the biggest mystery
surrounding future climate change and the main reason why a doubling of atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentration is reflected in various climate models as a rise in temperature ranging between
1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius. This spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds,
for reasons not yet understood. The study compared 43 different climate models and shows that the
differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical
troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity. This mixing apparently
dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms. As explained by the
NASA Earth Observatory low clouds act to cool the Earth due to the albedo effect while high, thin,
cirrus, clouds warm the planet because they are virtually transparent to the incoming shortwave
radiation from the Sun yet absorb the long infrared wave lengths that radiate heat from the Earth
back to space. As Steven Sherwood of the Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of
Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales stated in an interview,
"4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous. . . For example, it would make life
difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the
Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet, with sea levels rising by many metres as a
result. The argument for geoengineering goes that since governments show little inclination to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in spite of inexorable warming; we should try to find a way to
filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth in order that we can continue to
burn all of the fossil fuels we like. Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for
Biogeochemistry show that the world doesnt work that way and concluded geoengineering
approaches to reduce global warming are unlikely to succeed in restoring the original climatic
conditions. If you make the atmosphere warmer, but keep the sunlight the same, evaporation
increases by 2 percent per degree of warming. If you keep the atmosphere the same, but increase
the level of sunlight, evaporation increases by 3 percent per degree of warming. Water is a more
powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Kleidon used the analogy of a saucepan on a kitchen stove. The
temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid, or by turning up the heat but these two
cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot. While in the kitchen you can reduce your
energy bill by putting the lid on, with Earth's system this slows down the water cycle with wide-
ranging potential consequences. That is because evaporation itself, and the movement of water
vapour around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and
degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with
unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences. In US patent application 20100300095
Sea Surface Cooling System Utilizing OTEC, Tohihiko Sakurai comes to a similar conclusion to that
reached by the Australian and French scientists referred to above. As the sea surface temperature
rises due to global warming, the amount of cloud cover above the sea decreases. The essential
reason for this is a weakening of atmospheric convection, and hence a weakening of ascending
current over the sea, due to the progression of global warming. Sakurai describes a mechanism of
thermal runaway that is effected through a double positive feedback process in which the density of
water vapour increases but the amount of cloud cover decreases and postulates that the most cost
effective way to counteract this may be to cool the ocean's surface rather than to reduce CO2 levels.
His invention would do this using an OTEC system designed solely to produce mechanical energy that
would pump cold water from the deep up to the ocean's surface. You can move a great deal more
heat, much faster, through phase changes of a working fluid rather than in masses of water because
the latent heat of vaporization and its inverse the latent heat of condensation of a liquid is much
greater than its sensible heat and it is easier to move a light vapour than a heavy liquid. In light of
recent findings it seems advisable that we should be moving surface ocean heat to deep water using
an OTEC system with a deep water condenser in view of the ocean's demonstrated capacity to
absorb such heat. It had been assumed in some circles that the movement of heat from near the
ocean's surface into deeper waters had reduced climate change over the past 15 years by as much as
50 percent. I and some associates believe that using phase changes of a working fluid is the most
appropriate way to produce extraordinarily large amounts of energy from the oceans thermal
statification as well and in doing so you would cool the oceans surface and prevent potential thermal
runaway. In the first Existential Imperative posting the concern was phytoplankton that are the
lungs of the planet and the base of the ocean food chain. It now seems the odds against our
mortality beyond the end of this century may be as low as thirty percent; perhaps even less than that
of phytoplankton. It is time therefore to start doing something with haste and in the most
productive way possible.
Ocean Ranch Advantage
Extension Topsoil Loss Now
Global food is collapsing the plan provides cheap fertilizer that boosts arable soil
Reuters 7/17, Nigel Hunt and Sarah McFarlane are correspondents for Reuters, ('Peak soil' threatens
future global food security, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-peaksoil-agriculture-
idUKKBN0FM1HC20140717, 7/17/2014) Kerwin
The challenge of ensuring future food security as populations grow and diets change has its roots in soil,
but the increasing degradation of the earth's thin skin is threatening to push up food prices and increase
deforestation. While the worries about peaking oil production have been eased by fresh sources
released by hydraulic fracturing, concern about the depletion of the vital resource of soil is moving
center stage. "We know far more about the amount of oil there is globally and how long those stocks
will last than we know about how much soil there is," said John Crawford, Director of the Sustainable
Systems Program in Rothamsted Research in England. "Under business as usual, the current soils that
are in agricultural production will yield about 30 percent less than they would do otherwise by around
2050." Surging food consumption has led to more intensive production, overgrazing and deforestation,
all of which can strip soil of vital nutrients and beneficial micro-organisms, reduce its ability to hold
water and make it more vulnerable to erosion. Such factors, exacerbated by climate change, can
ultimately lead to desertification, which in parts of China is partly blamed for the yellow dust storms that
can cause hazardous pollution in Asia, sometimes even severe enough to cross the Pacific Ocean and
reduce visibility in the western United States. Arable land in areas varying from the United States and
Sub-Saharan Africa, to the Middle East and Northern China has already been lost due to soil
degradation. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that 25
percent of agricultural land is highly degraded, while a further 8 percent is moderately degraded. More
Mouths Crawford said the degradation of soil could in theory lead to more land being bought into
agricultural production, which would deal a serious blow to efforts to stem climate change, since
clearing forests for farmland leads to a heavy net increase in greenhouse gases. "If we keep treating our
soil the way we do, we will have to convert about 70 percent of the earth's surface into agriculture to
meet demand for food by 2050 (from about 40 percent now)," Crawford said. That is in part because
there will be many more mouths to feed. The United Nations has projected that global population will
reach 9.6 billion by 2050, up from 7.2 billion last year. Emerging nations are also embracing Western
diets that include more consumption of meat, which will add further to the strain on agricultural
resources. Crawford also noted that moderately degraded soil could only store about half the amount of
water of good soil, adding to pressure on limited water resources. "We need to find ways of pricing the
true cost into food, including the environmental cost of soil degradation," Crawford added. Food
security became a hot topic after record high grain prices in 2008 marked the start of a period of
volatility. Agricultural markets are still unstable, after near-record prices in 2012 prompted increased
production, which led to surpluses. Prices have since fallen back on the rebound in production and
global stocks, with decent harvests expected in several major grain producers including the United
States this year, but there's a risk of complacency on the long-term outlook. "We are trying to make sure
when we talk about food security we talk about healthy soil. The link has been missing to some extent,"
said Moujahed Achouri, Director of the FAO's Land and Water Division. "We do believe there that now
there is momentum (to tackle the soil problem)." Price pressure and ultimately margin pressure can lead
to farmers taking shortcuts to achieve something in the short term at the expense of the long term, said
Nicholas Lodge, managing partner at Clarity, a Gulf-based agricultural investment firm. "You can really
have a harmful impact on soil in as little as one season," said Lodge. "If you happen to have damaged
the soil and you're losing the top soil, it's not then an easy matter to repair that situation or replace that
soil." Soil Minded One of the main drivers of soil degradation has been the trend towards less diversity
in agriculture. "In a lot of agriculture it has become a monoculture, so you just don't get the diversity of
plants that are necessary for healthy soil, and often the agricultural practices are all about mining the
soil rather than managing it," said Tim Hornibrook, head of Macquarie Agricultural Funds Management
Limited. Vietnam is one example of a country where there has been an increased focus on one crop with
a huge surplus of robusta coffee grown to export to the global market. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture also estimates that corn will be harvested on around 177 million hectares this year, a rise of
around 65 percent over the last 50 years. "Farming with monocultures leads to decreased productivity,"
Hornibrook said. Excessive use of fertilizers can also cause damage to soil, at times altering its acidity or
salinity in ways that reduce microbial activity and therefore ultimately plant growth. More education in
the farming sector on how to conserve soils, along with better use of technology, is expected to help
tackle the problem. "Technology which can help includes imagery which allows you to do soil mapping
of what mineral and nutrients are in the soil and applying fertilizer according to the requirement of each
individual area of the farm," said Hornibrook, adding that investment was challenging as the sector was
fragmented and capital starved. "The issue doesn't get addressed without capital. Investing in your soil
costs money and therefore the ultimate way to incentivise farmers to do it is higher food prices." But
higher prices alone won't encourage consumption patterns that provide a healthy balance for both
people and soil. "Consumers make choices largely on price, farmers make decisions largely on profit,"
Crawford said, adding there was no clear incentive to encourage behavior that benefited health or the
environment. "We need to try and encourage better diets from a health and environment point of
view."
Global agriculture cannot keep up with increasing demand alarming losses of
topsoil mean fertilizers and marine sources are necessary
Muralidharan 12 Shylesh Muralidharan, received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from
Pondicherry University and an MBA from Mumbai University, and a Masters of Systems Design and
Management from MIT. Muralidharan, S. Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, MIT,
February 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/76927//ghs-kw)
Marine food production is a potential by-product of OTEC power plants. With the alarming loss of
topsoil throughout the world our agricultural production will not be able to keep up with increase in
demand. Hence, ocean may well become our most important source of food, even more important
than the power generated. The ocean is the one of the greatest potential source of food and OTEC might
just be the answer for producing more food. Deep ocean water contains a much higher percentage of
nitrates and phosphates than contained in the upper layers. Studies show that when cold waters are
brought to the surface by upwelling, the fish-production is significantly increased. The greatest fish-
producing area in the world is off the west coast of South America where the Humboldt Current brings
deep water to the surface, and supplies the fertilizer to produce millions of tons of fish annually. Since
an ocean thermal power plant necessarily pumps up cold water to be utilized in the plant, and since the
process warms this water in the plant, it is natural to think that this nutrient rich water can be
discharged into the near-surface zone where sunlight can promote growth of micro-organisms and the
entire chain of marine life developed from this food supply. This valuable by-product can be cultured in
open systems near the surface or in closed systems with pens and fences.
Extension Food War Impact
Food shortages and price spikes cause conflict spark social unrest, riots, state
collapse, and mass migrations
Klare 12 Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, holds a
Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute in 1976, 2012 (The Hunger Wars in Our Future,
Huffington Post, August 7
th
, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-hunger-wars-in-our-
fu_b_1751968.html | ADM)
Food -- affordable food -- is essential to human survival and well-being. Take that away, and people
become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United States, food represents only about 13 percent of
the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably
not prove overly taxing for most middle- and upper-income families. It could, however, produce
considerable hardship for poor and unemployed Americans with limited resources. You are talking
about a real bite out of family budgets, commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omahas
Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and high-
unemployment areas, perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and
other forms of dissent and unrest.
It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating
effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S. to supplement their own
harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as well, food supplies
are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. What happens to the U.S. supply has
immense impact around the world, says Robert Thompson, a food expert at the Chicago Council on
Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn and soybeans, disappear from world
markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is likely to soar, causing immense hardship to
those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed their families.
The Hunger Games, 2007-2011
What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn
ugly. In 2007-2008, when rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply
higher prices -- especially for bread -- sparked food riots in more than two dozen countries, including
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting became so
violent and public confidence in the governments ability to address the problem dropped so
precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the countrys prime minister, Jacques-douard Alexis.
In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead.
Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food
production more expensive. (Oils use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and
pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being
diverted from food crops to the cultivation of plants used in making biofuels.
The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however, closely associated with climate change. An intense
drought gripped much of eastern Russia during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that
breadbasket region by one-fifth and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt
Chinas grain harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of Australias wheat crop. Together with
other extreme-weather-related effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50
percent and the price of most food staples by 32 percent.
Once again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social unrest, this time concentrated in North
Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose over the cost of staples in Algeria and then
Tunisia, where -- no coincidence -- the precipitating event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi,
setting himself on fire to protest government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices
combined with long-simmering resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what
became known as the Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a
cause of unrest in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic
regimes, may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian
Parenti, wrote, The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of bread.
As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa, where corn is a major
staple, and of increased popular unrest in China, where food prices are expected to rise at a time of
growing hardship for that countrys vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and poor peasants.
Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also lead to reduced consumer spending on other goods,
further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and producing yet more worldwide misery,
with unpredictable social consequences.
The Hunger Games, 2012-??
If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would undoubtedly absorb the
ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come. Unfortunately, its becoming evident
that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a single heartland nation, but rather an
inevitable consequence of global warming which is only going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not
just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United
States, but globally for the indefinite future.
Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on global warming.
Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be demonstrated in certain
cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011, for instance, climate specialists
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Great Britains National Weather
Service concluded that human-induced climate change has made intense heat waves of the kind
experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, it reported that global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas
heat wave was 20 times more likely than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm
temperatures like those experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because
of global warming.
It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the effect of global
warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but we can assume the
level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the warming gains
momentum?
When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we envision rising temperatures,
prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels. Among other things, this will
result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of
warming in the physical world, not the social world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our
daily well-being and survival. The purely physical effects of climate change will, no doubt, prove
catastrophic. But the social effects including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation,
state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could
prove even more disruptive and deadly.
In her immensely successful young-adult novel The Hunger Games (and the movie that followed),
Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce, post-apocalyptic future
where once-rebellious districts in an impoverished North America must supply two teenagers each
year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for all but one of the youthful
contestants. These hunger games are intended as recompense for the damage inflicted on the
victorious capitol of Panem by the rebellious districts during an insurrection. Without specifically
mentioning global warming, Collins makes it clear that climate change was significantly responsible for
the hunger that shadows the North American continent in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial
contestants are about to be selected, the mayor of District 12s principal city describes the disasters,
the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and]
the brutal war for what little sustenance remained.
In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence on which such a world might be
organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of those hunger games, do not doubt that
some version of them will come into existence -- that, in fact, hunger wars of many sorts will fill our
future. These could include any combination or permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008
collapse of Haitis government, the pitched battles between massed protesters and security forces that
engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and
water sources that have made Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable
distribution of agricultural land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites of
India.
Combine such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of
people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns and expanding slums
surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such eruption, with grisly
results, occurred in Johannesburgs shantytowns in 2008 when desperately poor and hungry migrants
from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases burned to death by poor South
Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station from the raging mobs, said she fled her
country because there is no work and no food. And count on something else: millions more in the
coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to
migrate to other countries, provoking even greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the
possibilities that lie in our hunger-games future.
At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still ongoing Great
Drought: dying crops, shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye out for the social and
political effects that undoubtedly wont begin to show up here or globally until later this year or 2013.
Better than any academic study, these will offer us a hint of what we can expect in the coming decades
from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and
billions of famished, desperate people.
Extension Aquaculture Internal Link
OTEC provides optimal technology for domestic aquaculture production deep-
ocean chemicals, low temperatures, and pathogen free water this solves
worldwide food scarcity
Websdale Communications Support Officer at The Wildlife Trusts 2/24/14 (Emma Websdale, The
Promise of OTEC Aquaculture, Empower the Ocean, http://empowertheocean.com/otec-aquaculture/)
Due to the technologys looped system, under certain conditions the water can be re-used for secondary
applications including desalination to create fresh drinking water. One particularly attractive by-
product of OTEC plants is nutrient-rich and virtually pathogen-free water from the deep ocean. This
water provides an optimal environment for various forms of aquaculture cultivation of both plants
and animals. Through open-ocean fish farming (where adequate flushing ensures dilution of waste
products), aquaculture can produce sustainable food supplies. Thus, OTEC provides an attractive
application to the aquaculture industry, especially in the face of current declines in commercial fishing
stocks. The cold, deep seawater, available as a result of producing renewable energy through OTEC
technology has numerous advantages for aquaculture systems: -Rich in dissolved nitrogen, carbon and
phosphorus, OTECs deep-ocean water contains chemicals that are essential for fish and plant growth.
-The consistent low temperature of OTEC water provides opportunities to culture valuable cold-water
organisms both in native environments and in the tropics. -The virtually pathogen-free water pumped
by OTEC allows disease-free cultivation of sensitive organisms. Aquaculture via deep seawater is not
just a theory or hopeful expectation. The Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA)
currently utilizes cold deep seawater for both mature and developing commercial aquaculture
applications. NELHA already farms numerous seafood products including shrimp, lobster, oysters,
abalone, tilapia, kampachi, flounder and salmon. Additionally, aquaculture at NELHA includes the
growing of microalgae for pharmaceuticals or biofuels, thus providing an input for humanitarian and
environmentally friendly industries. Investment Opportunity Aquaculture is both sustainable and
achievable. With wild fish stocks disappearing at an all-time rate, aquaculture provides a solution for
replenishing global fish populations and alleviating pressure on intensively over-fished wild stocks.
Moreover, OTEC aquaculture can provide self-sustaining food resources for tropical island communities,
helping them to compete with foreign fishing industries. OTEC aquaculture can also strengthen local
economies of small island developing states (SIDS), by creating job opportunities for local island
residents. As the global population edges towards nine billion by 2050, the opportunity for jobs in the
aquaculture industry will continue to grow. This economic impact doesnt stop with island
communities. Aquaculture can also extend to upstream industries including agriculture, hatcheries,
feed manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and veterinary services. Downstream industries such
as processors, wholesalers, retailers, transportation, and food services are also supported by the
aquaculture industry. Because OTEC plants can incorporate aquaculture services into their design, they
will help to meet future fish demands improving both food security and protection of dwindling wild
fish populations. An investment into OTEC facilities is a smart one it helps reduce the risk of global
conflict over depleting food resources and enhances the livelihoods of the millions of people who
depend upon our oceans.
OTEC powers grazing platforms which are key to artificial upwelling
Matsuda et al 98Pacific International Center for High Technology Research (Fujito, Tom
Tsurutani, James P. Szyper, and Patrick Takahashi, OCEANS '98 Conference Proceedings, Volume 2, THE
ULTIMATE OCEAN RANCH,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=724382)
Artificial upwelling, along with ocean ranching, is a key technological concept to the end-point vision,
because only by augmentation of the inorganic nutrient supply to the photic zone can there be
enhancement of marine photosynthesis- based food chains leading to harvestable protein.
Oceanographers use the term "new" production for the portion of photosynthetic production derived
from nutrients that have moved (however slowly) into the photic zone from below the base of the
mixed layer, as distinct from production supported by nutrient recycling within the mixed layer. Thus the
upwelling mariculture concept aims to enhance new production in the sea. This decade's open-ocean
iron-enrichment experiments, in which addition of iron at the sea surface stimulated productivity in the
equatorial upwelling, suggest that further supplementation of artificially upwelled nutrients might
intensify the photic zone enrichment.
Artificial upwelling can be produced by a variety of means. Existing land-based research facilities (in the
U.S. Virgin Islands, at Kochi Artificial Upwelling Laboratory in Japan, and at the Natural Energy
Laboratory of Hawaii) produce artificial upwelling with conventional pumps. A wave-driven artificial
upwelling device has been developed at the University of Hawaii, which will permit small-scale
examination of plume behavior and management strategies. Another upwelling strategy is illustrated by
the Japanese work with artificial seamounts, in which artificial structures are placed in the way of
natural ocean currents to bring deep ocean water to the surface.
Ultimately, the "grazing platforms" will be powered by OTEC, which will draw water up from depths
near 600 m with temperatures below 10 "C and content of nitrate and phosphate near 90% that of the
deepest ocean depths. These nutrient concentrations are greater than those of the thermocline- depth
waters that supply the worlds natural upwelling zones, which in turn account for a major portion of
world fishery production in a very small percentage of the ocean's area. The practical region of the
world ocean for OTEC is approximately that of deep waters between the tropics, the actual area being
affected by land masses and ocean currents. Both closed-cycle and open-cycle plants have been
operated at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) in Kailua-Kona on the island
Hawaii, as research and demonstration projects by PICHTR. Although the more distant future for OTEC
will likely lead to relatively large floating facilities, a nearer-term application may be in landbased plants
of 1-10 MW capacity, designed for small island developing states and funded by international aid
agencies. This might be examined as a collaborative means to initiate an upwelling mariculture platform
trial. Although open- and hybrid-cycle OTEC plants generate fresh water and closedcycle plants do not,
the generated power will be able to produce sufficient water for the associated human staff or
community with any OTEC strategy.

Extension Plankton Internal Link
OTEC solves aquaculture without affecting the environment
Golmen 05 et al. (Lars G. Golmen holds a "Cand-real" (PhD equivalent) degree in Geophysics,
physical oceanography, from the University of Bergen, 1983. His university degree contained full year
courses or more in mathematics, physics and chemistry, plus 2years of oceanography. After graduation
he worked 3 years as a research scientist at the Geophysical Institute, U o Bergen. He began working at
NIVA in 1986 as a researcher and he has served there as division manager (1992-1997) and research
manager for oceanography (1994-1999) and until now as senior research scientist in physical
oceanography. Golmen is Co-founder of Runde environmental centre)

The worlds fisheries are in decline and so are also the reservoirs of fossil fuels. OTEC (Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion) is a process that can harness vast amounts of renewable thermal energy from the
ocean and convert it to electricity. OTEC prototypes of the order of 1 MW have been tested, and GW-
size floating plants have been designed. The cost per kWh is marginally higher than for fossils fuel power
systems, but is projected to become more competitive in the future. Work is now in progress in the
USA, Japan and Norway to design OTEC plants that are combined with large-scale fish farming. Nutrient-
rich deep ocean water used by the OTEC process would be applied to produce phytoplankton which, in
turn, would be consumed by zooplankton and thus provide feed for fish. Present offshore fish farming
is based on up scaling traditional fish farms, and their placement off the coasts, e.g., in the USA, have
raised environmental concerns. The Next Generation Fisheries (NGF) design as presented here is
different, and will have minimal or no negative environmental impact. Additionally, excess renewable
energy that is produced that can be converted into useful products, or exported to the onshore power
grid. This presentation provides an overview of the concept and possible design, and discusses scaling
and some calculations of fish vs. electricity production.
Extension Water Internal Link
OTEC can produce massive amounts of fresh drinking water, reducing the risk of
global conflict
Websdale Communications Support Officer at The Wildlife Trusts 6/17/14 (Emma Websdale, 5
Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment, Empower the Ocean,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-investment/)
5) OTEC Enhances International Security and Reduces the Risk of Conflict. Investments of over
US$260m (168m) into research and development funds (R&D) for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC) have made harvesting this renewable energy achievable at the present time. OTECs ability to
simultaneously produce voluminous quantities of fresh drinking water and baseload renewable
energy will be a factor in reducing global water-stress conflict and safeguarding international security.
The OTEC demonstration plant, built in Hawaii in the 1990s, bears witness to OTECs reliability against
tropical storms and hurricanes. With twenty uninterrupted years of cold deep ocean water flowing
through its pipes, the facility proves that climate-driven weather events pose minimal threat to OTECs
functional components. This makes OTEC technology one of the most stable foundations on which to
build a future of clean global energy. Global commercialization of SWAC systems and OTEC plants will
provide hundreds of communities with the self-empowerment tools they need to shape a sustainable
future. As countries develop clean energy, they can step away from volatile and expensive fossil fuels
and move closer to long-term energy independence. In summary, by providing safe, reliable products
that are in great demand by the worlds core markets, OTEC offers enormous business investment
opportunities. Its technologies also offer a vision of community independence, carbon emission
reduction and fresh drinking water supplies around the globe.
OTEC solves desalinationtech is ready
Jalihal 14
(Dr. Purnima Jalihal, Scientist-G, Head-EFW Group National Institute of Ocean Technology Ministry of
Earth Sciences (Govt. of India). Jalihal, P. OTEC Experiences Spin-offs & Road Ahead, Diplomacy and
Foreign Affairs, 2014, http://diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com/otec-experiences-spin-offs-road-ahead)
Desalination utilizing ocean thermal gradient is one of the spin off technologies of OTEC. Along with
attempts on OTEC, NIOT initiated research activities on thermal desalination. Extensive laboratory
studies using evaporators, condensers, vacuum systems, demisters etc. was carried out in laboratory
level. This was followed by establishing pilot LTTD Plants on the Islands. NIOT setup a land based
demonstration plant in Kavaratti with a capacity of producing 1 lakh litre per day of freshwater in May
2005 [3]. The sea bed bathymetry near the island was such that 350m water depth was available at
about 600m from the shore. Temperature gradient of 15oC was utilised (Temperature at surface water
at 28oC, water at 350 m depth at 12oC). A High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe of 630mm diameter
and 600m long was deployed to draw cold water from a depth of about 350m. This was a complex and
challenging task and was the first successful pipe deployment after the difficulties faced in the OTEC
pipe deployments [4]. The sea water pumps inside the partitioned sump supply warm and cold water to
the plant on the land. Fig. 3 shows a view of the Kavaratti Desalination Plant [5]. The plant has been
running continuously ever since, fulfilling the needs of the 10000 strong local community for over seven
years. The salinity of the freshwater produced was reduced from 35000 ppm of the seawater to 280
ppm whereas the permissible limit for drinking water is 500 ppm. Subsequent to the commencement of
the plant water supply for drinking water needs, there has been a significant drop in the incidence of
water borne diseases among the consumers. NIOT subsequently set up similar plants in two more
islands of the region. Figs 4 a and b show the Agatti and Minicoy plants respectively. For a LTTD plant
meant for the mainland needs, NIOT has demonstrated an experimental 10003m /day (1 Million litres
per day) barge mounted desalination plant 40 km off Chennai coast [6]. Temperature gradient of about
18oC was utilised with surface water at 28oC and the water at 550m depth at 10oC. The plant was
commissioned in April 2007 and the sea trials were successfully conducted for a few weeks. The barge
with the plant and the mooring buoy are shown in Fig. 5. Application of LTTD in Power Plants Thermal
power plants discharge warm water from their condensers. The process that involves transfer of
tremendous levels of energy usually includes heat recovery systems like cooling towers or heat
dissipating open channels before the condenser reject water at acceptable temperatures is discharged
back into the surrounding environment. However power plants still discharge warm water than
desirable and the resultant thermal pollution by the power plants is a serious issue today. One of the
aspects of LTTD is that it transfers the available heat from warmer water to the colder water while
generating fresh water from the warm water. This aspect could therefore be aptly used in thermal
power plants resulting in the double benefits of cooling the condenser reject water and generating the
fresh water. With the idea of demonstrating the concept in a coast based thermal power plant, where
the coexistence of warm power plant condenser reject water and the nearby surface sea water with a
gradient of about 8o-10oC presents an ideal case for LTTD application, NIOT took up the task of setting
up the LTTD plant in North Chennai Thermal Power Station. Fresh water was successfully generated and
the process of scaling up is in progress. Road Ahead NIOT has gained a vast experience in designing OTEC
& desalination plants as also in their installation particularly offshore. The complexities in the
installation of the long cold water conduits offshore have been understood. Since most of the
equipment are of Indian make, capacity now exists for putting up OTEC and desalination plants from
conceptualization to reality. Efforts are on to combine the OTEC and desalination cycles and scale up the
desalination for coastal areas of the mainland.
Freshwater crises are coming now Only OTEC can solve.
Muralidharan 2012 (Shylesh Master of Science in Engineering and Management at Pondicherry
University Mechanical Engineering school. Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion 2012
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives.pdf .accessed 6/29/14)
In 2011, the increase in population to more than 7 billion translated into double the water consumption
in the last half century and between 1970 and 1990, per capital of available water decreased by a third.
An increasing demand for water for drinking water supplies, sanitation, agriculture, energy production
and generation, mining and industry is expected to compete for a limited supply of fresh water. By 2025,
more than half the nations in the world will face freshwater stress or shortages and by 2050 as much as
75% of the world's population could face freshwater scarcity!6|. Regions with intensive agriculture and
dense population as the Asia, Africa and the US have high threat to water security. According to the US
Natural Resources Defense Council[33], more than one-third of all counties in the lower 48 states of the
US will likely be facing very serious water shortages by 2050. Though water is a renewable resource,
only 2.5% of earth's water is potable, and almost two-thirds of that is locked up in glaciers and
permanent snow cover. The Earth has a limited supply of fresh water in the form of aquifers, surface
waters and the atmosphere. Oceans are an abundant supply of water but the amount of energy needed
to convert seawatcr to water for human use is expensive today, explaining why only a very small fraction
of the world's water supply derives from desalination27. OTEC can step in as the technology which can
provide integrated clean and sustainable solutions with large-scale desalination options with electricity
generation catering to small- and medium-sized communities which are both energy- and water-
constrained. Sustainable supply of freshwater in the future will depend on using innovative alternative
technologies such as advanced membrane-separation technologies in non-traditional water sources
including waste water, brackish groundwater and extracted mine walei i<> increase the 'water capital*
in inland regions. But coastal regions and regions not loo far from the coast, where a freshwater
distribution network is already established, can utilize OTEC to extract freshwater water from the ocean
In addition to electricity generation, an OC-OTEC plant produces freshwater as a by-product of the
power generation process. When the cold deep ocean water condenses the vapor from the warm water
stream through heal exchangers, freshwater is produced, leaving the salt behind in the warm water
stream. This water is completely free of salt and suitable for most agricultural, commercial, industrial
and domestic uses.
And, Food and freshwater scarcity are inevitable absent the plan. OTEC solves.
Muralidharan 2012
(Shylesh Master of Science in Engineering and Management at Pondicherry University Mechanical
Engineering school. Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion 2012 Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Archives.pdf .accessed 6/29/14 )
As per a UNICEF report [5], one of mankind's most serious challenges in the 2 Is1 century will be a lack of
adequate fresh water supply. Population growth, climate change and water pollution can lead to a
drastic decline in the water supply worldwide. In 2010, about 80% of the world's population lived in
areas with an impending threat to water supply [6]. Water scarcity may become a main driver in OTEC
plant adoption in several geographies around the world. The oceans cover 70% of the Earth's surface,
making them the largest repository of unconverted energy and potential desalinated water[4]. OTEC
plants can generate clean, renewable consistent electricity, desalinate water and also support a marine
aquaculturc economy which can power some of the island nations in the OTEC-friendly belt5. Though
the initial costs to install these plants arc significant, governments are evaluating support to these types
of projects to infuse the grid with alternative and sustainable sources of power, solve freshwater and
food issues and create additional jobs.
Extension Water War Impact
Water scarcity nowwar escalates and goes nuclear
Kreamer 12
(David K. Kreamer, Professor of Hydrology, Ph.D. - University of Arizona: 1982, Hydrogeology,
Contaminant Transport by Groundwater. Kreamer, D.K. The Past, Present, and Future of Water Conflict
and International Security, Universities Council on Water Resources, Issue 149, pp 88-96, December
2012. http://www.ucowr.org/issue-149/the-past-present-and-future-of-water-conflict-and-
international-security//)
On March 22, 2012, World Water Day, an unclassified version of a U.S. National Intelligence Council report on Global Water Security was released which stated that,
without more effective water resources management, between now and 2040, worldwide fresh water
availability will not keep up with demand (National Intelligence Council 2012). U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the
report sobering (Environmental News Service 2012). The report stated that While wars over water are unlikely within the next 10 years, water
challenges shortages, poor water quality, floods will likely increase the risk of instability and state
failure, exacerbate regional tensions, and distract countries from working with the United States on
important policy objectives. The report goes on, Water problems will hinder the ability of key countries to
produce food and generate energy, posing a risk to global food markets and hobbling economic growth,
and concludes, As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle
East, and South Asia will face major challenges coping with water problems. Concern over the effects of world water
shortages on global political stability are not new. In 1998, the member organizations of UN-Water (known then as the United Nations Administrative Committee on
Coordination, Subcommittee on Water Resources) stated that there was a need for regular, global assessments on the status of freshwater resources. As a result,
the Committee decided to create a United Nations World Water Development Report every three years, beginning in 2003, with a goal of reporting on the status of
global freshwater resources and any advancement in reaching the Millennium Development Goals for water (Medina et al. 2007). In March 2009, the third UN
World Water Development Report warned that water scarcity, including that produced by climate change, has the potential to produce major conflicts over water
(United Nations World Water Assessment Programme 2009), and quoted UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as recognizing that, as surface water supplies diminish,
more competition is placed on ground water resources. Water problems affect about half of humanity and a large number of
the worlds ecosystems. These stresses affect the stability of communities and have the potential to
enflame simmering antagonisms and disputes. Recent findings of the United Nations - Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and
Drinking Water, state that nearly 900 million people have no access to improved sources of clean drinking water and note that over 2.6 billion people
(approximately 40 percent of the world) presently do not have access to improved sanitation (World Health
Organization 2010). Part of the problem in the Developing World is rapid urban development which has resulted in many i nformal settlements. These lack domestic
waste disposal, sanitation and sewerage/effluent systems, and force people to inhabit, provide sanitation, and obtain water from very limited areas. In some of
these areas, surface water bodies are highly impacted, and shallow wells (widely used as the source of water in the absence of nearby surface sources), are often in
close proximity to pit latrines. According to some researchers, Over 80 percent of sewage in developing countries is discharged untreated in receiving water
bodies (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme 2009), affecting not only drinking water, but ecosystems that cannot subsist in eutrophic conditions
(Palaniappan et al. 2010). The poor, and particularly children, are hurt by unhygienic, insufficient water. Dr. Maria Neria, World Health Organization Director of
Public Health and the Environment, is quoted by the Huffington Post as asserting, Unsafe water, inadequate sanitation and the lack of hygiene claim the lives of an
estimated 2.2 million children under the age of five every year, and the impact of diarrheal diseases *alone+ in children under 15 is greater than the combined
impact of HIV and AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis (Sauer 2010). Child deaths of 2.2 million annually are equivalent to over 6,000 deaths per day, or about one
death every 14.5 seconds. In communities where there is competition for an inadequate supply of clean water, public and private discord can be exacerbated.
There are other costs of lack of clean, reliable water. Food security is intimately linked with water, as
worldwide agriculture accounts for 70 percent of all water consumption compared to 20 percent for
industry and 10 percent for domestic use (Food and Agricultural Organization 2012), and many forms of energy
production require reliable water resources. Just as importantly, the impact of scarce water resources exacts a day-to-day cost on a
personal human level. Millions of children and particularly girls spend several hours a day collecting water and are unable to attend school, and there are estimated
additional losses of 443 million school days each year from water related illnesses (United Nations 2006). Economic losses associated with water related disease are
linked with health expenditures, absenteeism, and productivity decline, which are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is
estimated to have lost about 5 percent of gross domestic product in 2003, or about $28.4 billion
annually to water-related disease, which is more than the total debt relief and aid to the region that
year (United Nations 2006). Furthermore, serious problems that arise from inadequate water can last for generations. For example, an estimated 100,000 to
250,000 died in the Sub-Sahelian African drought of 1968-1975, and millions of herd animals perished. As a result, there was major societal upheaval, large shifts in
population (5.5 million people displaced), many thousands of children were brain damaged from inadequate nutrition, and the economy of the region (8 countries)
was devastated for decades (Abbott 2004). These types of externally imposed stresses can lead to social unrest, political instability, and, in some cases, may presage
armed conflict. The role of water creating unrest and in military conflict has shifted in human history. In times of major global conflicts, clean
water supplies have served as direct military tools or military targets. In times lacking all-out global war,
particularly in modern times, local or regional water battles for economic and social development
dominate, along with terrorist activities that center on attacking or controlling local water supplies to
promote ideological religious or ethnic factions (Pacific Institute 2012). Water has been a historical tool of military conflict, and while
future large-scale wars over water are not anticipated (National Intelligence Council 2012), water scarcity can foment regional tension
and conflict, encourage border disputes, and can be the focus of terrorism, local tribal and ethnic
warfare, and political contention in the context of competing economic development (Pacific Institute 2012). In the
past, depriving advancing armies and communities under besiegement of water has been a key military tactic for millennia, and water has been used directly as a
weapon. There is a long history and many examples of armies denying clean water to military opponents
(Pacific Institute 2012). As early as 2450 to 2400 BC, surface water was diverted by Urlama, King of Lagash and his son, to deprive the neighboring land of Umma and
its city of Girsu of water (Hatami and Gleick 1994). This border region, also known as Guedena (edge of paradise) which was the scene of conflict for centuries, is
located in what is now southern Iraq. Several thousand years later, World War II exemplified the manipulation of surface water for military objectives. Dams and
water supplies were one primary target of aerial bombing, with the British Royal Airforce bombing dams on the Eder, Mohne, and Sorpe Rivers in Germany on the
16th and 17th of May 1943 (London Gazette 1943) as part of Operation Chastise. Human-created floods were also used by both sides to slow enemy advances. In
one example, at the suggestion of the Chinese politician Chen Guofu and on the orders of Chiang Kai-shek, the dikes on the Yellow River near Zhengzhou, China
were opened in 1938 during the Second Sino-Japanese War, flooding thousands of hectares in order to slow the advance of the Imperial Japanese Army (Dutch
2009). Likewise, the Dutch flooded the Gelderese Vallei in 1940 to slow the Nazi advance through the Netherlands, and the Germans flooded the Liri, Garigiliano,
Rapido, Ay and the Ill Rivers, and the Pontine Marshes to slow Allied advances in 1944 (Pacific Institute 2012). In addition to surface water being manipulated to
achieve political ambitions, ground water also is prominent in military history. As recounted in the King James Bible, in 701 BC springs outside the walls of
Jerusalem, including Gihon Spring, were stopped to keep water from Assyrians who were advancing on the city (Scofield 1967). In the siege of the iron-age fort of
Uxellodunum, which sat on a craggy hilltop in Frances Dordogne Valley, Julius Caesar subverted water supplies by undermining local springs and placing troops near
others and a nearby river, eventually leading to the heraldic surrender of the Gauls in 51 BC (McDevitte and Bohn 1869). In 1187 AD, as the Crusaders approached
the Horns of Hattin (near Tiberias in present day Israel), Saladin ordered the Muslim forces of the Ayyubid dynasty to sand up wells and destroy villages that could
supply water to the advancing army. Saladins armies captured or killed the large majority of the Crusaders, making Islamic forces the foremost military power in the
Holy Land and prompting a Third Crusade. Poisoning and polluting water sources has also been a military tool. In the sixth century BC, Assyrians poisoned enemy
wells with ergot (Claviceps purpurea), a fungus, which grows on rye and related plants and whose kernel (sclerotium) produces the alkaloid ergotamine, effecting
the nervous and circulatory systems resulting in nausea, hallucinations, and/or death (Eitzen and Takafuji 1997). Carcasses have often been thrown in water supplies
in wartime; for example during the Civil War (Catton 1984), in East Timor by militia killing pro-independence supporters and disposing of bodies in water wells (Al-
Rodham 2007), and in 1999 where 100 bodies were found in drinking water wells in central Angola (Al-Rodhan 2007). Other examples of water system poisoning
includes the 1915 wartime actions of German troops retreating from the Union of South African troops at Windhoek (Daniel 1995; Totten et al. 2004) and the lacing
of wells and reservoirs with typhoid and other pathogens by the Japanese Unit 731 during World War II (Harris 1994). Water has been used both
as an excuse and a vehicle for ethnic violence. Even erroneous claims of well poisoning have sparked
past ethnic and religious violence, a precursor to contemporary ethnic water conflict. As Black Death
epidemics annihilated approximately half the population in mid-14th century Europe, rumors spread
that the disease was caused by Jews deliberately poisoning wells. (The pathogen responsible is actually the Yersinia pestis
bacterium, carried by the fleas of black rats likely carried to Europe on merchant ships). Pope Clement VI condemned the subsequent violence and forced
confessions resulting from torture. Hundreds of Jewish communities were destroyed by violence, in particular in
the Iberian Peninsula and in the Germanic Empire. In Toulon, Provence 40 Jews were burnt alive in April 1348 as were 900 Jews of
Strasbourg on February 14, 1349 (Marcus 1938). In modern-day echoes of past and religious and ethnic violence, Serbs disposed of bodies of Kosovar Albanians in
local wells and Yugoslav federal forces poisoned wells with carcasses and hazardous materials in the 1990s (Hickman 1999; Pacific Institute 2012), and more
recently, more than 150 Muslim bodies were dumped in village wells Nigeria during the miasma of the post-election 2010 riots (BBC 2010). There are other
contemporary examples of the water supplies of ethnic or religious groups being targeted by political leaders. In Botswana in 2002, President Festus Mogae was
condemned by international observers for sending forces to the Kalahari Desert to destroy water holes and wells of indigenous Bushman (Khoi san), presumably in
an attempt to move them from their familial lands (in favor of mining interests) and absorb them into the modern Botswanian social order. The Bushmen withdrew
into the desert and managed to survive in harsh conditions, against most predictions (Workman 2009). Between 1951 and 1990, the Mesopotamian Marshes
(Central, Hammar and Hawizeh) in Iraq and to a smaller extent Iran, were partially drained for mosquito control, to open up land for oil exploration, and for
agriculture. However in 1991 after the first Gulf War, an insouciant Saddam Hussein ordered that the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers be diverted away
from the marshes. Particular impact was seen in the Central Marshes, which stretched between An Nasiriyah, Al-Uzair (Ezras Tomb) and Al-Qurnah. That area
completely dried up, with 90 percent of the overall remaining marshland, and associated ecosystems disappearing. This was done in retribution for an unsuccessful
Shia uprising and targeted the Madan or Marsh people whose numbers dwindled from about 500,000 in the 1950s to an estimated 20,000 by 2003, with an
estimated 80,000 to 120,000 moving to refugee camps in Iran. Many international organizations such as the UN Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Council of
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Middle East Watch and the International Wildfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau have concluded that the draining of the
marshes was a political move with severe social and environmental consequences (Pearce 1993; TED 2012). In the past decade, water disputes have not produced
large-scale global war, but regional fights and local wars often have used water as a part of a stratagem to advance political goals. In the Sudan, years
of civil unrest saw wells being intentionally bombed around the village of Tina and contaminated in
Khasan Basao in 2003 and 2004. In this Darfur region of the Sudan, disputes have traditionally been
solved by tribal conferences but the influx of small arms have fueled anti-government efforts of ethnic
groups such as the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equality Movement (Amnesty
International 2004). On the contrary, water has not always been the target of conflict, but sometimes the cause. The perceived
misallocation and unavailability of water itself has instigated clashes in what has been labeled
development disputes (Pacific Institute 2012). In October and November of 2004, 4 people were killed and
over 30 injured in the Sriganganagar District of India near the Pakistan border during protests over the
allotment of water from the Indira Ghandi Canal (Indo-Asian News Service 2004). Additionally, between 2004 and 2006 a drought
affected an estimated 11 million people across East Africa, killing large numbers of livestock and forcing
the governments of Kenya and Ethiopia to intercede in scores of skirmishes over water in their
countries, even sending military forces and police to pacify battles around wells. In Ethiopia, during that time, there
was significant fighting over ground water resources between two clans, with the rise of what local pastoral farmers and herders called well warlords and well
warriors (Pacific Institute 2012). The extensive violence, referred to as the war of the well, left over 250 dead and many injured, and one villager quoted by the
Washington Post said Thirst forces men to this horror of war (Wax 2006). In northwestern Kenya, over 90 people had died by July 2005 in fighting over water
between the nomadic and settled communities of the Maasai and Kikuyu (Pacific Institute 2012). In some cases, rivers can be used as either
an overt political instrument or as a potential threat. There are many regions in the world where rivers
flow through several adjacent nations and the strengths, weaknesses, and absences of existing treaties
between political entities can create tensions. In 2009 North Korea released floodwaters from Hwanggang Dam, 26 miles north of the
border with South Korea, killing 5 people in the south. South Korea demanded an apology, and has been historically apprehensi ve over the possibility of a water
offensive from the North (Choe 2009). There are other examples of disputes over surface water. The headwaters of the Tigris and
Euphrates Rivers that flow into Iraq begin in Turkey and Syria, and the control of those rivers is
dependent on release of waters from upstream dams, such as the Atatrk Dam which is the centerpiece
of 22 large Turkish dams on those rivers. According to Harte (2011) a recent report submitted to the United Nations Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights alleges that Turkeys dams have failed to conform to international guidelines designed to prevent human rights violations through
development and infrastructure projects. Also, according to Harte (2011) the UN report notes with alarm that the Turkish government has performed no
assessment of the environmental and social impacts of these dams, perhaps because they would mostly impinge on already marginalized groups such as the rural
poor, nomads, the Alevi, and the Kurds in violation of Article 2.2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights 1966). An emerging region of potential conflict over water is southern Asia,
particularly on the borders of India, Pakistan, and the Peoples Republic of China (Economist 2011).
Naissant tensions are growing over rivers that run cross-border in the Jammu and Kashmir region from
India to Pakistan (including the Indus River), and from China to India in the Arunachal Pradesh State (including the
Tsango/Brahmaputra River system) with, at times, the generation of fierce rhetoric. An April 2011 editorial in the Pakistani newspaper Nawa-i-Waqt stated
Pakistan should convey to India that a war is possible on the issue of water and this time the war will be
a nuclear one (Economist 2011). In spite of a far-sighted, 1960 Indus Water Treaty, Pakistanis harbor fears over existing and
planned Indian dams, which have the potential to limit water in critical growing seasons. These fears can be
embodied in the comments of Bashir Ahmad, a geologist in Srinagar, Kashmir. He posits, They will switch off the Indus to make Pakistan
solely dependent on India. Its going to be a water bomb (Economist 2011). Likewise, Indian politicians claim that China has plans
to divert the Tsango/Brahmaputra which flows south off the Tibetian Plateau. China has not always been felicitous towards India, having previously blocked an
effort by the Asian Development Bank to arrange plans for a dam in the disputed Arunachal Pradesh region. Bangladeshi security expert Major-General
Muniruzzaman opined that Indias coercive diplomacy, and rejection of multilateral cooperation on subjects such as river sharing portends that if there
ever were a localized conflict in South Asia it will be over water (Economist 2011).
OTEC Solves Fertilizer
OTEC has massive potential for ammonia production ammonia is key to
agriculture.
Muralidharan 2012 (Shylesh Master of Science in Engineering and Management at Pondicherry
University Mechanical Engineering school. Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion 2012
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives.pdf .accessed 6/29/14)
One of the products that can be produced using hydrogen is ammonia. There is a worldwide demand for
ammonia for fertilizer and other purposes, especially in several tropical nations of the world. Ammonia
is produced by the direct combination of nitrogen and hydrogen, and many studies show that ocean
thermal plants are the most logical source for production. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory has made extensive studies of the economics and practicality of producing ammonia in an
ocean thermal plant |6, 49]. Of all the energy intensive by-products that OTEC is capable of producing,
ammonia was considered an important candidate for production from OTEC plants due to its high
volume of end use in fertilizers and other chemicals |20). Ammonia production through OTEC may
provide an important alternative to the production of these products from natural gas. Here. OTEC
competes with other non-renewable resources such as petroleum and coal Though production of
ammonia from natural gas has the lowest estimated cost in i'short tons. OTEC scored favorably with
respect to relative environmental impact. The optimum commercial si/e for OTEC/ammonia plant-ships
is expected to be in the 10001700 STPD1: range requiring an approximately 300-500 MW plant |60|.
Economies of scale arc possible due to centrifugal compressors in (he ammonia synthesis plant beyond
the threshold production of oOO SUM). Also, traditional methods of ammonia production are highly
carbon negative so once carbon credits are accounted for. the economics of OTE( ammonia production
can be significantly improved.
OTEC externally solves food shortages through fertilizer production.
Christopher Barry, 2008. Naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers ad hoc panel on ocean renewable energy. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2
Sequestration, renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2-
sequestration/.
There might be an additional benefit: Another saying is "we aren't trying to solve world hunger," but
we may have. Increased ocean fertility may enhance fisheries substantially. In addition, by using OTEC
energy to make nitrogen fertilizers, we can improve agriculture in the developing world. OTEC
fertilizer could be sold to developing countries at a subsidy in exchange for using the tropic oceans. If
we can solve the challenges of OTEC, especially carbon sequestration, it would seem that the Branson
Challenge is met, and we have saved the earth, plus solving world hunger. Since President Jimmy
Carter originally started OTEC research in the '70's, he deserves the credit. I'm sure he will find a good
use for Sir Richard's
OTEC Solves Chilled-Agriculture
OTEC solves
U.S. Department of Energy 13 (8/16/13, U.S. Department of Energy, Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Basics, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-
basics)
OTEC has potential benefits beyond power production. For example, spent cold seawater from an OTEC
plant can chill fresh water in a heat exchanger or flow directly into a cooling system. Simple systems of
this type have air-conditioned buildings at the Natural Energy Laboratory for several years. OTEC
technology also supports chilled-soil agriculture. When cold seawater flows through underground pipes,
it chills the surrounding soil. The temperature difference between plant roots in the cool soil and plant
leaves in the warm air allows many plants that evolved in temperate climates to be grown in the
subtropics. The Natural Energy Laboratory maintains a demonstration garden near its OTEC plant with
more than 100 fruits and vegetables, many of which would not normally survive in Hawaii. Aquaculture
is perhaps the most well-known byproduct of OTEC. Cold-water delicacies, such as salmon and lobster,
thrive in the nutrient-rich, deep seawater culled from the OTEC process. Microalgae such as Spirulina, a
health food supplement, also can be cultivated in the deep-ocean water. Finally, an advantage of open
or hybrid-cycle OTEC plants is the production of fresh water from seawater. Theoretically, an OTEC plant
that generates 2 megawatts of net electricity could produce about 14,118.3 cubic feet (4,300 cubic
meters) of desalinated water each day.
Leadership Advantage
Extension Tech Leadership Impact
And, Locking-in Tech leadership reduces conflict
Goldstein 2k7 Avery Goldstein, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations
at the University of Pennsylvania, Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for
International Politics, Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, holds a Ph.D. from the
University of California-Berkeley, 2007 (Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East Asia:
Theoretical expectations and evidence, Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume 30, Number 4-5, August-
October, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Taylor & Francis Online, p. 647-648)
Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences for international politics of a shift in
power between a dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World Politics, Robert Gilpin suggested that peace
prevails when a dominant states capabilities enable it to govern an international order that it has
shaped. Over time, however, as economic and technological diffusion proceeds during eras of peace and development, other states are
empowered. Moreover, the burdens of international governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon, and challengers eventually
emerge who seek to rewrite the rules of governance. As the power advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may
become desperate enough to resort to the ultima ratio of international politics, force, to forestall the
increasingly urgent demands of a rising challenger. Or as the power of the challenger rises, it may
be tempted to press its case with threats to use force. It is the rise and fall of the great powers that
creates the circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin labels hegemonic wars, break out.13 Gilpins
argument logically encourages pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation that international
trade, investment, and technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic
power, benefiting the rapidly developing states of the world, including China. As the US simultaneously scurries to put
out the many brushfires that threaten its far-flung global interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be unable
to devote sufficient resources to maintain or restore its former advantage over emerging competitors like China. While the erosion of the
once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find it ever more difficult to preserve the order in Asia that it created during
its era of preponderance. The expectation is an increase in the likelihood for the use of force either by a
Chinese challenger able to field a stronger military in support of its demands for greater influence over international arrangements in
Asia, or by a besieged American hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends that
alarm *end page 647+ those who would look at Asia through the lens of Gilpins theory are Chinas expanding share of world trade and
wealth (much of it resulting from the gains made possible by the international economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition
of technology in key sectors that have both civilian and military applications (e.g., information, communications, and electronics linked
with the revolution in military affairs); and an expanding military burden for the US (as it copes with the challenges of its global war on
terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq) that limits the resources it can devote to preserving its interests in East Asia.14 Although
similar to Gilpins work insofar as it emphasizes the importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominant state and a rising challenger,
the power-transition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger focuses more closely on the allegedly
dangerous phenomenon of crossover the point at which a dissatisfied challenger is about to overtake the established leading state.15
In such cases, when the power gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly desperate to forestall, and the
challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition to a new international order
whose contours it will define.
Extension OTEC Solves Tech Leadership
OTEC key to overall US technological leadership.
R. Ramesh, K Udayakumar, and M Anandakrishnan, 1997. Centre for Water Resources and Ocean
Management Anna University, India., School of Electrical and Electronics Centre for Water Resources
and Ocean Management Anna University, India, and Former Vice Chancellor, Anna University, Tamil
Nadu State Council for higher Education. Renewable Energy Technologies, pg. 33.
6.2 Non-economic Benefits
The non-economic benefits of OTEC which facilitate achievement of goals are: promotion of the
countrys competitiveness and international trade, enhancement of energy independence and security,
promotion of international political stability, and a potential for control of greenhouse emissions.
Maintenance of leadership in 10 the technology development is crucial to the capability of a significant
share of the market in the global market for such systems exploitable energy resource available to a
large number of countries, particularly developing countries, represents long-term export opportunities.
Development of OTEC technology would mitigate dependence on external sources of energy for remote
and. A viable OTEC commercial sector also support national defense by enhancing related maritime
industry and by providing energy and water options for remote island defence installations.
Extension China Rise Impact
Loss of Asian regional hegemony is the only existential risk---their wars pale in
comparison
Layne 7 Christopher Layne, associate professor of International Affairs at the Bush School of
Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, Fall 2007, Who Lost Iraq and Why It Matters:
The Case for Offshore Balancing, online: http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-
matters-case-offshore-balancing
The wars ideological supporters are wrong. The United States is not failing in Iraq because
mistakes were made. Rather, the decision to go to war was itself mistaken. From its inception,
the invasion of Iraq was fated to be mission impossible, not mission accomplished, because the
strategy was based on faulty assumptions and its objectives exceeded Americas grasp. The U.S.
failure in Iraq should be a strong warning against provoking a military conflict with Iran, and the
catalyst for a new regional strategy: offshore balancing.1 The key assumption underlying offshore
balancing is that the most vital U.S. interests are preventing the emergence of an dominant
power in Europe and East Asiaa Eurasian hegemonand forestalling the emergence of a
regional (oil) hegemon in the Middle East. Only a Eurasian hegemon could pose an existential
threat to the United States. A regional hegemon in the Middle East could imperil the flow of oil
upon which the U.S. economy and the economies of the advanced industrial states depend. As an
offshore balancer, the U.S. would rely on the dynamics of the balance of power to thwart any
states with hegemonic ambitions. An offshore balancing strategy would permit the United States
to withdraw its ground forces from Eurasia (including the Middle East) and assume an over-the-
horizon military posture. Ifand only ifregional power balances crumbled would the United
States re-insert its troops into Eurasia.
Uniqueness Asia Overtaking the US
More S&T needed to maintain leadership NSB report shows US will be overcome by
Asian S&T (try or die)
NSF 12 US government agency that supports research and education in science and engineering
(New Report Outlines Trends in U.S. Global Competitiveness in Science and Technology, National
Science Board, 1/17/12, http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122859&)//RH
The United States remains the global leader in supporting science and technology (S&T) research and
development, but only by a slim margin that could soon be overtaken by rapidly increasing Asian
investments in knowledge-intensive economies. So suggest trends released in a new report by the
National Science Board (NSB), the policymaking body for the National Science Foundation (NSF), on
the overall status of the science, engineering and technology workforce, education efforts and
economic activity in the United States and abroad. "This information clearly shows we must re-
examine long-held assumptions about the global dominance of the American science and technology
enterprise," said NSF Director Subra Suresh of the findings in the Science and Engineering Indicators
2012 released today. "And we must take seriously new strategies for education, workforce
development and innovation in order for the United States to retain its international leadership
position," he said.
Tech Leadership Key to Heg
Independently, technological leadership is key to military power and broader
hegemony
Adam Segal, November/December 2004. Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html.
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and
industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and
technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It
was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead.
Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious
challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and
technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science
journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the
world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of
computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in
semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting
considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a
significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by
continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the
world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Science Leadership Good
Science leadership is key to stable hegemony and international influence none of
their turns apply
Coletta, 09 Duke University , Ph.D. in Political Science, December 1999 Harvard University , Master in Public Policy, 1993 Stanford
University , Master in Electrical Engineering, 1989 Stanford University , B.S.E.E., 1988 *September 2009, Damon Coletta, Science, Technology,
and the Quest for International Influence, http://www.dtic.mil/...c=GetTRDoc.pdf]
On the one hand, leaders of both political parties in the United States recognize the traditional links between
scientific progress and international leadership. The President has found broad support in an era of
tight budgets for research that can prompt technological development for ground units of the Army or Marines
scrambling to solve counterinsurgency problems or for U.S. carmakers urgently redesigning their products in a volatile global market. With
respect to its military crisis and its economic crisis, the most powerful nation-state reserves space in
its accounts for science to help innovate its way out. Less appreciated is how scientific progress
facilitates diplomatic strategy in the long run, how it contributes to Joseph Nyes soft power, which
translates to staying power in the international arena. One possible escape from the geopolitical
forces depicted in Thucydides history for all time is for the current hegemon to maintain its lead in science,
conceived as a national program and as an enterprise belonging to all mankind. Beyond the new technologies
for projecting military or economic power, the scientific ethos conditions the hegemons approach to social-
political problems. It effects how the leader organizes itself and other states to address well-springs of
discontentmaterial inequity, religious or ethnic oppression, and environmental degradation. The
scientific mantle attracts others admiration, which softens or at least complicates other societies
resentment of power disparity. Finally, for certain global problemsnuclear proliferation, climate change, and
financial crisisthe scientific lead ensures robust representation in transnational epistemic
communities that can shepherd intergovernmental negotiations onto a conservative, or secular, path in
terms of preserving international order. In todays order, U.S. hegemony is yet in doubt even though
military and economic indicators confirm its status as the worlds lone superpower. America possesses
the material wherewithal to maintain its lead in the sciences, but it also desires to bear the standard
for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, patronage of basic science does not automatically flourish with liberal democracy. The
free market and the mass public impose demands on science that tend to move research out of the basic and into applied realms. Absent
the lead in basic discovery, no country can hope to pioneer humanitys quest to know Nature. There is
a real danger U.S. state and society could permanently confuse sponsorship of technology with
patronage of science, thereby delivering a self-inflicted blow to U.S. leadership among nations. Perhaps
all these observations reflect Thucydides cyclethe rise and fall of great powersand nothing can be done. Yet, such pessimism ignores the
successful record of the United States in negotiating comparable dilemmas, notably the contradiction between capitalism, an economic system
that concentrates wealth, and democracy, a political system that diffuses the vote. Fareed Zakaria, editor at Newsweek magazine and author of
rare books that travel across highbrow international relations theory and popular culture, offered some room for maneuver when he
characterized the current crisis in capitalism as a crisis in professions for American democracy. 84 Adam Smiths laissez-faire market could not
survive without Adam Smiths theory of moral sentiments. Todays sophisticated global economy will not create wealth without professions
that are both technically competent and socially conscious. A growing literature in American politics applies principal-
agent dynamics to explain how democracies respond to policy challenges demanding technical
expertise. 85 Typically, the agents are professionals responsible for conveying expert knowledge to politician principals representing the
public interest. Whether the professionals are military officers, intelligence agents, or diplomats, American democracy faces a dilemma of
control. Too much monitoring or intervention politicizes the agents, binds them from speaking truth to power and guts their value as expert
professionals. Too little direct involvement means the experts can use their information advantage to manipulate the principal: technocracy
replaces government by the people. The social science literature recognizes that the best practical solution is somewhere in between, and
anticipating Zakaria, that the dilemma is less acute if the professionals develop Adam Smiths moral sentiments, that is, if the expert advisers
see themselves as officers with a stake in the larger system. The more seriously professionals take this moral code to serve the principal and not
game the system by exploiting asymmetric knowledge for their individual benefit, the more autonomy they can be granted, and the more the
republic can gain from expertise in military affairs, intelligence analysis, or economic strategy. Particularly after the U.S. governments dramatic
expansion of patronage for science through the Office of Naval Research in 1946, science is home to one of those professions
vital for maintaining national power and position in the international system. Furthermore, a familiar principal-
agent dilemma confounds democratic attempts to strike the balance between technocratic virtuosity and public accountability. 86 At present,
the difficulties mission-oriented bureaucracies like ONR have in detecting and nurturing Nobel quality work in the basic sciences suggest that
democratic constraints are set too tight. To regain the reputation abroad for outstanding American Science,
government sponsors will have to grant scientists more autonomy at home, especially in the field of basic
research. Program directors and scientist beneficiaries at university will garner more freedom from politicians and policymakers if they can
embrace a professional ethos both patriotic and moral. If these professionals internalize social benefits to science, to
mankind, and to Americas international influence from fulfilling the public trust, American democracy
can scale back its regulations. It can also subdue debilitating demands for timely material results without fretting over the loyalty of
experts serving on the remote frontiers of science.

More S&T key to maximize cooperation on global issues and solve medicine, economy,
relations, and national security empirics prove
Baird 8 subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology,
House of Representatives, 110 Congress, former House Representative for 3
rd
Congressional District
(Brian, International Science and Technology Cooperation, Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH
Unfortunately, I also learned that we must do more to maximize the effectiveness of science and
technology cooperation. Cooperation should not be pursued simply as a means of achieving bigger
and better science. It should also be pursued for the sake of development, diplomacy, and informing
decision-makers around the world about critical environmental, security, economic, resource and
health issues. It seems to me that the Federal Government might need an organization and a process
dedicated to setting government-wide priorities and overseeing implementation of those priorities.
One of my goals for this hearing is to understand how--or if--the Federal Government sets priorities for
international science cooperation, and who is or who should be responsible for coordinating and
overseeing the entire effort. There have been some attempts in the past--such as the creation of a
Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology under the President's National Science
and Technology Council--to assign that task to a dedicated organization. Some experts have suggested
assigning this task to the State Department itself. To that end, Congress created a Science and
Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State in 1999. Dr. Nina Fedoroff is the third renowned scientist to
hold that position. In a demonstration of her commitment to better integrate science in our diplomatic
activities, Dr. Fedoroff personally lobbied Secretary Rice to broaden her job description to include
Science Adviser to the Administrator of USAID. While the State Department may be at the center of
many of these efforts, I would be remiss to downplay the critical role played by a number of other
agencies, including the National Science Foundation; the mission agencies, represented here today by
NASA; and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has responsibility both for advising the
President on the science and technology components of national and international issues, and for
coordinating research and development activities across the Federal Government. Today,
representatives from these agencies will tell us about current efforts and opportunities in international
science and technology cooperation and help us understand how such cooperation benefits the United
States and the world. I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to appear before the
Committee this morning and I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and good morning, and Dr. Ehlers is sorry he could not be here to greet these esteemed--to
hear these great witnesses today, and hear their testimony, but he is giving his own testimony before a
committee this morning, and cannot be here. Hopefully, we will have the benefit of his presence shortly,
but in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that his opening statement be inserted into the record.
Chairman Baird. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] Prepared Statement
of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers International diplomacy can be crafted through a variety of mediums.
Science and technology as a vehicle of diplomacy has been explored by our nation, but I believe it is
currently underutilized. This hearing will help us understand both the established foundation of science
diplomacy and how we might build upon it. While I share the concern about the fiscal year 2008
omnibus and its impact on the ITER agreement, this is only one symptom of a greater problem: the
perceived worth that scientific collaboration has to our foreign affairs. While it is hard to gauge the
return on investment in international science and technology cooperation, it is much easier to realize
the cost of not investing in these types of endeavors. Furthermore, the U.S. will not remain globally
competitive in science and technology unless we are able to work with international partners on large
facilities that simply cannot be financed by individual nations. In many fields, U.S. researchers would be
crippled by lack of participation in these activities. I am very pleased that Dr. Fedoroff is testifying
today and I believe that the Science and Technology Advisor position at the Department of State has
helped build the profile of science and technology diplomacy. Thank you for your attendance, and I look
forward to testimony from our panel today. Mr. Neugebauer. The issue of international science and
technology cooperation is one of importance to this nation. This committee spends a significant amount
of time talking about American science and technology developments and improvements in terms of
global competitiveness. That is as it should be, and is necessary if we are going to remain ahead of the
innovation curve. We do not spend as much time talking or hearing about global cooperation and
collaboration when it comes to science and technology, but we are actively involved in these equally
important endeavors, and I commend the Chairman for his interest in this topic, and for calling this
hearing today. I am pleased to see that we have such a distinguished panel before us this morning to
give us an update on what their agencies are doing and any challenges or obstacles that they may be
facing when it comes to international cooperation. I thank you for coming, and I look forward to your
testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer
follows:] Prepared Statement of Representative Randy Neugebauer Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. Dr. Ehlers is sorry he cannot be here to greet these esteemed witnesses and hear their
testimony, but he is giving his own testimony before another Committee this morning and cannot be
here. Hopefully, we will have the benefit of his presence shortly, but in the meantime, I ask unanimous
consent that his opening statement be inserted for the record. The issue of international science and
technology cooperation is one of importance to this nation. This committee spends a significant amount
of time talking about American science and technology developments and improvements in terms of
global competitiveness. That is as it should be and is necessary if we are to remain ahead of the
innovation curve. We do not spend as much time talking or hearing about global cooperation and
collaboration when it comes to science and technology, but we are actively involved in these equally
important endeavors, and I commend the Chairman for his interest in this topic and for calling this
hearing today. I am pleased to see that we have such a distinguished panel before us this morning to
give us an update on what their agencies are doing and any challenges or obstacles they may be facing
when it comes to international cooperation. I thank you for coming; I look forward to your testimony;
and I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the
record at this point. [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] Prepared Statement of
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing on international collaborations in science and technology. In addition to my service on this
committee, I also lead an International Woman's Peace Initiative that is dedicated to improving peace
through the empowerment of women. I will be interested to know how our federal science enterprise is
reaching out to other nations and utilizing scientific collaborations to strengthen ties to them.
Specifically, S&T outreach to the Middle East is of interest to me. I have also had the opportunity to
travel to Cuba several times. I know that the United States has medical students who are there, trying to
earn their medical degrees. International scientific collaborations with Cuba have decreased
dramatically under the current Administration. This stricture has robbed American citizens of
important medical breakthroughs, simply because our diplomats don't want to do business with Cuba.
Scientific collaborations, when pursued, can serve as salve in old wounds, to speed their healing.
When those bonds are loosened or broken, harm may be done. I want to thank today's panelists for
your presence here today and for the information that you are about to share. Members of this
committee want to ensure that international collaborations are sustained and are well-coordinated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:] Prepared
Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this important hearing
on international science and technology. As a Member of both the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am pointedly interested in the
coordination of international science and technology diplomacy. The United States has a central role in
science diplomacy, building more positive relationships with other countries through science. We also
understand that the U.S. can better affect U.S. national security and economic interests by helping to
build technological capacity in other countries. I am particularly interested in the role that the
Department of State plays in the effort and look forward to hearing more details.
Science leadership bolsters international cooperation
Friedman, 11 recently stepped down after 30 years as Executive Director of The Planetary Society. He continues as Director of the
Society's LightSail Program and remains involved in space programs and policy. Before co-founding the Society with Carl Sagan and Bruce
Murray, Lou was a Navigation and Mission Analysis Engineer and Manager of Advanced Projects at JPL. [Feb 14, 2011, Lou Friedman, The Space
Review, American leadership, http://www.thespacer...article/1778/1]
American Leadership is a phrase we hear bandied about a lot in political circles in the
United States, as well as in many space policy discussions. It has many different meanings, most
derived from cultural or political biases, some of them contradictory. The term sometimes arouses
antipathy from non-Americans and from advocates of international cooperation. They may find it
synonymous with American hubris or hegemony. It is true that American leadership can be used as a
nationalistic call to advance American interests at the expense of non-American interests. But more
often it may be used as an international call for promoting mutual interests and cooperation. That is
certainly true in space, as demonstrated by the International Space Station, Cassini-Huygens,
the James Webb Space Telescope, the Europa Jupiter System Mission, Mars 2016/2018 and Earth
observing satellites. These are great existing and proposed missions, which engage much of the world
and advance the interests of the US and other nations, inspire the public, and promote cooperation
among technical and scientific communities worldwide. Yet space exploration and development are
often overlooked in foreign relations and geopolitical strategies. Sometimes, the connection between
space exploration and foreign relations has even been belittled in the space community. I refer to the
NASA administrators foray into the Middle East last year, promoting science, math, and technology as a
way to reach out to Muslim nations. It is true that he used some unfortunate wording, such as
foremost purpose, but it was great that the administration wanted the space program to be part of its
overarching international efforts to engaging the Muslim community in peaceful pursuits. Apollo and
the International Space Station were both accomplishments motivated more by international and
geopolitical interests than they were by space enthusiasm. Its my view that space ventures should be
used to advance American engagement in the world. (For example, with China on the space station and
Russia in Mars Sample Return.) American leadership in space is much more desired that resented
except when it gets used unilaterally, as in the past Administrations call for dominance in cislunar
space.Asian countries (China, Japan, India) are especially interested in lunar landings; Western
countries, including the US, much less so. However, cooperating with Asian countries in lunar science
and utilization would be both a sign of American leadership and of practical benefit to US national
interests. Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin has been a leader advocating such cooperation. At the same
time American leadership can be extended by leading spacefaring nations into the solar system with
robotic and human expeditions to other worlds. The US cant do everything alone. Climate monitoring,
Earth observation, space weather prediction, and ultimately asteroid deflection are huge and vital global
undertakings that require international participation. That is also true with exploration projects sending
robots and human to other worlds. American leadership in these areas is welcomed and used by other
countries, even as they develop their own national programs. The US government should make more of
this and not treat it as an afterthoughtor even worse, prohibit American leadership as the House of
Representatives is doing this week by banning any China collaboration or cooperation. (The proposed
House continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 prohibits OSTP or NASA funds to be used for anything to
do with China.) On a bigger stage I was struck by the demands of the Egyptian protesters over the past
few weeks for American leadership and engagement in reforming their country, while at the same time
strongly resenting any American interference in their country. This demand for American leadership
and opposition to American hegemony may seem inconsistent. It is not: it only emphasizes the need
to recognize the difference and use leadership for cooperation and engagement. If we Americans do
this in the space program, we will accomplish more in our many Earth, space science, and exploration
projects, and we will raise higher the importance of the space program on the national and
international political agenda
Leadership Now
The US is the leader in science and technology now this non-uniques
all of your DAs theres only a risk of a China rise in the future that
the plan solves
HSNW 08, Homeland Security News Wire is the homeland security industrys largest online
daily news publication, (U.S. remains the dominant leader in science and technology
worldwide, http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/us-remains-dominant-leader-
science-and-technology-worldwide, 6/15/2008) Kerwin
Perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, the United States remains the worlds undisputed
leader in science and technology; the key factor enabling U.S. science and engineering workforce
to grow: inflow of foreign students, scientists, and engineers Good news for the United States: We have written about
a growing perceptions that the United States is losing its competitive edge, but a RAND Corporation study issued the other day says the United States
remains the dominant leader in science and technology worldwide. The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total
worlds spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the worlds
Nobel Prize winners, and is home to three-quarters of the worlds top 40 universities. An inflow
of foreign students in the sciences as well as scientists and engineers from overseas has
helped the United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations
increase their spending on research and development. Continuing this flow of foreign-born
talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study. Much of
the concern about the United States losing its edge as the worlds leader in science and
technology appears to be unfounded, said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and a management scientist at RAND, a
nonprofit research organization. But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even
extends its standing. U.S. investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years, but
instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world growing even faster than what has been
seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does
not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be
dominated by the United States, Europe, and Japan, according to RAND researchers. Other nations, however, are rapidly educating
their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and
engineers every year than the United States. Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should
be balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist.
The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even
preeminent. There is a pressing need for ongoing, objective analyses of science and technology performance and the science and technology workforce.
We need this information to ensure that decision makers have a rigorous understanding of the issues, Hosek said. Among the studys
recommendations: Establish a permanent commitment to fund a chartered body that would periodically monitor and analyze U.S. science and
technology performance and the condition of the nations science and engineering workforce Make it easier for foreigners who have graduated from
U.S. universities with science and engineering degrees to stay indefinitely in the United States Make it easier for highly skilled labor to immigrate to the
United States to ensure the benefits of expanded innovation are captured in the United States and to help the United States remain competitive in
research and innovation Increase the U.S. capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan, China, India and other countries Continue to
improve K-12 education in general, and science and technology education in particular The inflow of foreign students,
scientists, and engineers has been a key factor that has enabled the U.S. science and engineering
workforce to grow faster than the number of U.S.-graduating native-born scientists and engineers would have otherwise allowed,
according to the report. Researchers found that foreign-born scientists and engineers are paid the same as native born, suggesting their quality is on
par. A recent reduction in the cap on skilled immigrant visas (H1-B), however, has the potential to
reduce the inflow of foreign science and engineering workers, and the report argues that
curtailing the supply of these scientists and engineers can lead U.S. firms to outsource more
research and development to foreign countries and locate new facilities overseas. Rather than
protecting jobs, this could lead to reduced investment and employment at home. Among
potential weaknesses faced by the United States are the persistent underperformance of older,
native-born K-12 students in math and science and the heavy focus of federal research funding
on the life sciences versus physical sciences. Another unknown is whether an increasing U.S.
reliance on foreign-born workers in science and engineering makes the U.S. vulnerable. In
recent years, about 70 percent of the foreign scientists and engineers who receive Ph.D.s from
U.S. universities choose to remain here, but the stay rate could fall as research conditions and
salaries improve abroad.

Add-Ons
Economy
OTEC solves the economy provides billions
Oney et al. 03, Sephen K. Oney has a PhD from the University of Hawaii in Ocean Engineering. Dr.
Joseph C. huang has a PhD in Mathematics from the University of Chicago. He was an Advanced
Research Fellow for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Hans J. Krock is an inventor
and scientist who developed a deep sea water harvesting method, apparatus, and product. (REVISIT
OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM, http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/390/art
%253A10.1023%252FA%253A1026062531405.pdf?auth66=1404068112_d792f5a060ee558de6d56b290
f96b0ba&ext=.pdf, 7/2/2003) Kerwin
The earth, covered more than 70.8% by the ocean, receives most of its energy from the sun. Solar
energy is transmitted through the atmosphere and efficiently collected and stored in the surface
layer of the ocean, largely in the tropical zone. Some of the energy is re-emitted to the atmosphere
to drive the hydrologic cycle and wind. The wind field returns some of the energy to the ocean in the
form of waves and currents. The majority of the absorbed solar energy is stored in vertical thermal
gradients near the surface layer of the ocean, most of which is in the tropical region. This thermal
energy replenished each day by the sun in the tropical ocean represents a tremendous pollution-free
energy resource for human civilization. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) technology refers
to a mechanical system that utilizes the natural temperature gradient that exists in the tropical ocean
between the warm surface water and the deep cold water, to generate electricity and produce other
economically valuable by-products. The science and engineering behind OTEC have been studied in
the US since the mid-seventies, supported early by the U.S. Government and later by State and
private industries. There are two general types of OTEC designs: closed-cycle plants utilize the
evaporation of a working fluid, such as ammonia or propylene, to drive the turbine-generator, and
open-cycle plants use steam from evaporated sea water to run the turbine. Another commonly
known design, hybrid plants, is a combination of the two. OTEC requires relatively low operation and
maintenance costs and no fossil fuel consumption. OTEC system possesses a formidable potential
capacity for renewable energy and offers a significant elimination of greenhouse gases in producing
power. In addition to electricity and drinking water, an OTEC system can produce many valuable by-
products and side-utilizations, such as: hydrogen, air-conditioning, ice, aquaculture, and agriculture,
etc. The potential of these by-products, especially drinking water, aquaculture and mariculture, can
easily translate into billions of dollars in business opportunities. The current status of the OTEC
system definitely deserves to be carefully revisited. This paper will examine recent major
advancements in technology, evaluate costs and effectiveness, and assess the overall market
environment of the OTEC system and describe its great renewable energy potential and overall
benefits to the nations of the world.
Economic decline causes global war
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department of Defense,
Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and
Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has
contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at
systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power
and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic
crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing
the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to
a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that
global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that
'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security
behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations.
However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for
conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could
potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third,
others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national
level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually
reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify
the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89)
Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004),
which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary
theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have
increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996),
DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller
(1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic
states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has
provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are
statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase
in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at
systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-
security debate and deserves more attention.
US Oil Dependence
OTEC provides functionally unlimited energy without any environmental costs
Marti et al. 12, Jos A. Mart is president of Offshore Infrastructure Associates, with offices in San
Juan, Puerto Rico, and Scotch Plains, New Jersey. He is a licensed professional engineer and planner, a
diplomate of the American Academies of Environmental and Water Resources Engineers and has more
than 30 years of experience.. Manuel A.J. Laboy is vice president and director of Offshore Infrastructure
Associates. He holds a bachelors degree in chemical engineering and a masters of business
administration, and he is a licensed professional engineer. He has extensive experience in process
design, construction and plant operations. Dr. Orlando E. Ruiz is an assistant professor at the University
of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, and a director of Offshore Infrastructure Associates. He received a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and also completed the General
Electric Edison Engineering Development Program. He has worked with aerospace and computer
companies and maintains a consulting practice. He focuses on Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics,
Thermodynamics, and Computational Fluid Dynamics. (Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion , https://www.sea-
technology.com/features/2010/0410/thermal_energy_conversion.html, 1/25/2012) Kerwin
Commercial Implementation When OTEC is compared to other energy technologies, three basic
aspects must be considered. One is capacity factor. OTEC generates power continuously, with an
estimated capacity factor of 85 percent or more, comparable only to combustibles and nuclear
power. Capacity factors of other renewable technologies are typically in the 25 to 40 percent range.
Even conventional hydropower seldom has capacity factors of more than 60 percent, due to flow
variations. The second important aspect is that OTEC does not require any fuel. Energy is generated
from purely local sources. This makes it attractive to locations that depend on imported fuels, which
are highly vulnerable to volatility in prices and to events affecting world energy markets. The third
important aspect is environmental. OTEC does not generate emissions of conventional air pollutants,
uses no nuclear materials, does not generate solid or toxic wastes and produces effluents similar to
the water it receives. The environmental impacts of OTEC are much lower than those of most
technologies capable of baseload power generation. The overall impact of these aspects is that OTEC
is a realistic option for many locations that presently rely on fossil fuels for their energy needs. Still,
for the technology to be commercially viable, plant output must be sold at prices that will cover costs
and provide a reasonable return to investors. Economic viability is the key to OTEC
commercialization. Commercial viability depends on a number of conditions. First, technologies
capable of producing baseline power at a lower cost than OTEC must not be available in the
proposed location. In addition, the thermal resource must be present on a continuous basis (i.e., the
temperature gradient must be equal to or greater than 20 C throughout the year) and located
relatively close to shore. Finally, there must be a market for the output of the plant. These conditions
occur in developed locations that presently consume large amounts of power from fossil fuels, such
as Puerto Rico and Hawaii, and also in other locations, such as smaller Caribbean and Pacific islands.
OIA estimates that power from an OTEC plant can be sold to consumers at $0.18 per kilowatt-hour or
less. More importantly, the price will be stable. For comparison purposes, the average price of
electricity in Hawaii in October 2009 was $0.2357 per kilowatt-hour, and it had reached levels as high
as $0.3228 per kilowatt-hour the previous October due to record high oil prices in the preceding
months.
Oil dependence undermines US hegemony
Deutch and Schlesinger 6(John Deutch, former Director of Central Intelligence, and James R. Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and
former Secretary of Energy, The National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, Independent Task Force Report No. 58, Project Director: David G. Victor,
Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations Press, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pdf) IF
The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and U.S. national security. Major energy suppliers from Russia to
Iran to Venezuelahave been increasingly able and willing to use their energy resources to pursue
their strategic and political objectives. Major energy consumersnotably the United States, but other
countries as wellare finding that their growing dependence on imported energy increases their
strategic vulnerability and constrains their ability to pursue a broad range of foreign policy and
national security objectives. Dependence also puts the United States into increasing competition with
other importing countries, notably with todays rapidly growing emerging economies of China and India. At best, these trends will challenge
U.S. foreign policy; at worst, they will seriously strain relations between the United States and these
countries. This report focuses on the foreign policy issues that arise from dependence on energy traded in world markets and outlines a strategy for response. And because U.S.
reliance on the global market for oil, much of which comes from politically unstable parts of the world, is greater than for any other primary energy source, this report is mainly about oil. To
a lesser degree it also addresses natural gas. Put simply, the reliable and affordable supply of energyenergy securityis an increasingly prominent feature of the international political
landscape and bears on the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy. At the same time, however, the United States has largely continued to treat energy policy as something that is separate and
distinct substantively and organizationallyfrom foreign policy. This must change. The United States needs not merely to coordinate but to integrate energy issues with its foreign
policy. The challenge over the next several decades is to manage the consequences of unavoidable
dependence on oil and gas that is traded in world markets and to begin the transition to an economy
that relies less on petroleum. The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma. For
the United States, with 4.6 percent of the worlds population using 25 percent of the worlds oil, the
transition could be especially disruptive.
Impact is nuclear War
Thayer 6 (professor of security studies @ Missouri State Bradley, The National Interest, In Defense of
Primacy, November/December, p. 32-37)

A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power-the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against
primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because
the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of pri-
macy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective
engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States
abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the
United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil
American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the
dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers
the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that
will remain the case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining
American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action but they fall to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are
reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point
the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world,
that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to
the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on re-
trenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less
secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play
in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising
powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its
commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American
wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom,
predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If
there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such
threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from .American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to
attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical,
on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global com-
mon"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space-allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a
consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is
increased.' This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy
is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this
is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for
their own purposes, their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties
and other informal arrangements-and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War
when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S.
primacy--and the bandwagoning effect-has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United
States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of
like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows
the United States to operate with allies outside of the where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save
the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A.
Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They
are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezeula. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as
toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most
important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if
necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United
States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's
power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba-it is
an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient
relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and
statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current
international order - free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing de-
mocratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the
current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen
when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the
order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as
assuredly. As country and western great Rai Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to
ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The
first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were
historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and
Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say
it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does
reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the
United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries
concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be
sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically,
the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they
do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence
with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush
Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why
democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will
have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their
people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even
though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to
democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like
Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy
has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has
labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets.
The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the
Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be
competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the
development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian
foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal
now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and
globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the
strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides
Solvency Backlines
Status Quo Regulations Bad
No regulatory structure now
Watkins 2005
(James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Hearing Before The
Committee On Energy And Natural Resources United States Senate One Hundred Ninth Congress First Session To
Discuss The Current State Of Our Nation's Offshore Energy Production And The Recent Technological
Advancements Made In The Exploration And Production Of Traditional Forms Of Energy, April 19
th
2005,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg22930/html/CHRG-109shrg22930.htm)
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion The surface waters of the worlds tropical oceans store
immense quantities of solar energy. Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology could
provide an economically efficient way to tap this resource to produce electric power and other
products. The U.S. government spent over $200 million dollars in OTEC research and
development from the the 1970s to the early 1990s that produced useful technical information
but did not result in a commercially viable technology.\10\ Early optimism about the potential
of OTEC led to the enactment of the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act in 1980, and the
creation of a coordinated framework and licensing regime for managing that activity if and when
economic considerations permitted. NOAA issued regulations to implement the Act, but because
of investor risk for this capital-intensive technology and relatively low fossil fuel prices, no
license applications were ever received and NOAA subsequently rescinded the regulations in
1996. Thus, the United States currently has no administrative regulatory structure to license
commercial OTEC operations.
AT: Long Timeframe
OTEC plant would be up and running in 5 years
Vega 10 -- PhD, National Marine Renewable Energy Center at the University of Hawaii, (Luis A
Economics of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC): An Update,May 6
th
2010
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Economics-2010.pdf,_
The major conclusion reached in the earlier report continues to be applicable: there is a market for
OTEC plants that produce electricity and desalinated water, however, operational data must be
obtained by building and operating demonstration plants scaled down from sizes identified as cost
effective. OTEC systems are in the pre-commercial phase with several experimental projects having
already demonstrated that the technology works but lacking the operational records required to
proceeding into commercialization. Adequately sized pilot projects must be operated in situ and for at
least one continuous year to obtain these records. Our analysis indicates that a pre-commercial or
demonstration plants sized at about 5 MW must be operated prior implementation of 50 to 100 MW
commercial plants. Accounting for externalities in the production and consumption of electricity and
desalinated water might eventually help the development and expand the applicability of OTEC.
Unfortunately, it is futile to use these arguments to convince the financial community to invest in
OTEC plants without an operational record. The major challenge continues to be the requirement to
finance relatively high capital investments that must be balanced by the expected but yet to be
demonstrated low operational costs. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from the successful
commercialization of wind energy due to consistent government funding of pilot or pre-commercial
projects that led to appropriate and realistic determination of technical requirements and operational
costs in Germany, Denmark and Spain. In this context, by commercialization we mean that equipment
can be financed under terms that yield cost competitive electricity. This of course depends on specific
conditions at each site. Presently, for example, in Hawaii cost competitiveness requires electricity
produced at less than about 0.20 $/kWh. Our analysis indicates that, without subsidies or environmental
credits, plants would have to be 50 MW or bigger to be cost competitive in Hawaii. In discussing OTECs
potential it is important to remember that implementation of the first plant would take about 5-years
after order is placed. This is illustrated with the baseline schedule shown in Table 7. The time required
for each major activity also applies to the pre-commercial or demonstration plant. Completion of the
engineering design with specifications and shop drawings would take one-year. Presently it is estimated
that the licensing and permitting process through NOAA (in accordance with the OTEC Act) would take
longer than 2-years for commercial plants with the provision of exemptions from the licensing process
for plants considered to be demonstration plants because of the limited duration of the operational
phase. A survey of factories that can supply all equipment required for the OTEC systems discussed
above shows that no technical breakthroughs are required but that some components would require as
long as 3-years to be delivered after the order is placed. The solicitation of equipment quotes based on
technical specifications, as it was done in preparation of this report, indicates that long-lead items would
require from 18-months to 36-months to be delivered. Based on experience with offshore projects of
similar size it is expected that one-year would be required to complete the deployment with a second
year set aside for commissioning. As stated above, there are sufficient petroleum resources to meet
demand for at most 50 years and with production peaking we will face a steadily diminishing petroleum
supply. This situation justifies re-evaluating OTEC for the production of electricity as well as energy
intensive products. The US should begin to implement the first generation of OTEC plantships providing
electricity, via submarine power cables, to shore stations. This would be followed, in about 20 years,
with OTEC factories deployed along equatorial waters producing, for example, ammonia and
hydrogen as the fuels that would support the post-petroleum era. The following Development
Schedule can be used as an outline of the activities required to implement ocean thermal resources as a
major source of energy for our post-petroleum future. A pre-commercial plant would be implemented
with US government funding. The plant would be operational (supplying electricity to the distribution
grid) within 5-years and would be operated for a few years to gather technical as well as
environmental impact information. Some of the valid questions regarding potential environmental
impacts to the marine environment can only be answered by operating plants that are large enough to
represent the commercial-size plants of the future. The design of the first commercial plant sized at 50
to 100 MW would be completed and optimized after the first year of operations with the pre-
commercial plant. This would be followed with the installation of numerous plants in Hawaii and US
Insular Territories for a cumulative total of about 2,000 MW over 15-years. As indicated in Table 8, the
design of the grazing factory plantships that will produce the fuels of the future (e.g., hydrogen and
ammonia) could be initiated as early as 15-years after the development program is implemented.
OTEC feasible now
CRRC 09 (Coastal Response Research Center, partnered with NOAA and University of New Hampshire for
this research Technical Readiness of
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Novermber 5th 2009,
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/otec/docs/otectech1109.pdf)//CS
It should be made clear that this report is a qualitative analysis of the state of the technology, and is
meant to inform NOAA OCRM. This report is not an exhaustive engineering analysis, nor is it an
independent appraisal of the technology. This report does not take into account economic,
environmental and social impacts and/or constraints, and is not part of the decision and permitting
process for OTEC by OCRM in the United States. The qualitative analysis of the technical readiness of
OTEC by experts at this workshop suggest that a < 10 MWe floating, closed-cycle OTEC facility is
technically feasible using current design, manufacturing, deployment techniques and materials. The
technical readiness and scalability to a > 100 MWe facility is less clear. Workshop participants
concluded that existing platform, platform mooring, pumps and turbines, and heat exchanger
technologies are generally scalable using modular designs (several smaller units to achieve the total
capacity needed), however, the power cable, cold water pipe and the platform/pipe interface present
fabrication and deployment challenges for 100 MWe facilities, and further research, modeling and
testing is required. The experience gained during the construction, deployment and operation of a 10
MWe facility will greatly aid the understanding of the challenges associated with a 100 MWe facility,
and is a necessary step in the commercialization and development of OTEC.
AT: Only Solves Tropics
New and bigger OTEC model is key and imported energy is inevitable-
it is just a question of what kind of energy
Baird 14 --Owner of the company called Global Warming Mitigation Method, claimed by some
the state-of-the-art and most viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste, BS in Chemistry at
The University of Calgary, Works with organizations such as United Nations Sustainable
Development, Environmental Services Professionals in Western Canada, and Aquaculture
Projects. (Baird is having a moderated debate in the comments of an article written by
Nordhaus and Shellenberg, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are leading global
thinkers on energy, climate, security, human development, and politics. Moderate
Environmentalists Go Nuclear, May 9th 2014
http://theenergycollective.com/michaelshellenberger/378026/moderate-environmentalists-go-
nuclear)//CS
Paul, I too take exception. To false information like "renewables will only be able to meet a small
portion of our baseload needs." Unfortunately Makai and every other current OTEC effort is
focused on the cold water pipe design that I too believe is a technological dead end, which isn't
to say there aren't better ways to do it. I concur however with Makai that you have to start small
to prove the design, which means the platform won't be economically viable. The
thermodynamics demand at least 100 MW to be economic and with a deep water condenser and
CO2 as a working fluid there are designs for a gigawatt plant. And in case you hadn't noticed
Nothern hemisphere cold climes have been deriving much of their energy from equatorial
regions a half planet away for some time now.
Commercialization Possible
OTEC is commercially mature but requires investment - greater federal
government support is needed
Meyer 12 [8/1/12, Laurie Meyer is chief engineer at Lockheed Martin Corp and has planned and
executed the company's ocean thermal energy conversion research and development program for the
last five years (from 2012). She directed the multicompany design teamsn for the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command OTEC Project Pilot Plant studies and key technology and hardware development,
and coordinates ongoing technical activity, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion: A Commercialization
Road Map, Ebscohost+ GKoo
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) leverages a vast, untapped renewable reservoir of energy
available in a broad area of the tropical oceans. OTEC is a standout renewable energy source in that it
offers the potential to produce baseload, renewable power at a very large scale. However, despite
this potential and major technological ad-vances in the offshore industry, no com-mercial OTEC
plants exist today, and an OTEC industry remains nascent. The concept behind OTEC is straight-
forward: OTEC leverages the warm and cold temperature differential found in tropical waters to
complete a power-producing cycle. But the energy density of that resource is low, so vast volumes of
warm and cold seawater must be pumped through very large heat ex-changers to produce
commercially sig-nificant net power output. Seawater pumps suitable for moving both warm and
cold water in amounts necessary for commercial-scale energy output are massive and, therefore,
must be optimized for efficiency. Packaging and layout of the warm and cold water pathways
through the OTEC system must be designed in ways that minimize power losses as the water moves
through the platform. Since the targeted cold water resource is typically found at water depths
approaching 1 kilometer, an OTEC developer will be installing and operating these systems in the
deepwater regime and in some cases far from shore and support infrastructure. While the basic
concept of OTEC has been around since 1881, the feasibility of a net-power-producing, ocean-based
OTEC was not demonstrated until 1979 with the development and testing of Mini-OTEC off the Big
Island of Hawaii by a consortium of companies led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland).
Mini-OTEC produced 50 kilowatts of power, was not connected to a grid and only operated for about
a three-month period. Nevertheless, it was considered a success given the rel-ative immaturity of the
offshore industry as a whole. At that time, the offshore industry was just beginning to operate in the
deep-water regime. Floating platforms and mooring systems were in the early stages of development
and had not yet been proven through long-term opera-tional deployment. Dynamic power ca-bles
capable of transmitting com-mercially significant amounts of power along the ocean were still being
de-signed. Additional OTEC-specific technology challenges included the need for a large-diameter
cold water pipe solution at the length of 1 kilometer and capable of surviving a 20-to-30-year service
life. There was also the need for affordable, high-performance heat exchangers op-timized for OTEC
cycle performance. Despite being proven at the small scale of Mini-OTEC, and the resulting
enthusiasm among renewable energy advocates of the day, dreams of com-mercializing OTEC took a
major hit with the precipitous drop in oil prices durin the mid-1980s. It has been onl in the last five
years, with the advent of a broader push for energy security and diversity coupled with mandates for
sig-nificant levels of renewable-based gen-eration capacity, that private companies and governments
have once again begun to investigate how to make OTEC a commercially viable reality. In the last 30
years, the offshore in-dustry has moved beyond decpwater into ultradeepwater operations. Most of
the non-OTEC-specific technologies re-quired to build, install and operate an OTEC plant now exist
as mature, com-mercially available solutions. OTEC's technology challenges have been helped along
further with an in- crease in research and development at-tention from a variety of sources in the
last five years, including industry, the Department of Energy and the U.S. Navy. The infusion of funds
has spurred progress. Research and development efforts in heat exchangers have focused on per-
formance improvement, corrosion re-sistance and producibility. New designs are being tested in the
lab, for example, at the National Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority where Lockheed Mar-tin has
two units, with more planned. Investments have also led to a design and process for building a low-
cost, scalable composite cold water pipe in situ from an OTEC platform. This process and key
elements of the com-posite tooling have been validated, and the challenging interfaces between the
composite pipe and the steel platform structure have been successfully tack-led. Plans are being
finalized for full in-tegration and demonstration of 4-meter-diameter pipe fabrication. With
component technology matur-ing it is a promising time for OTEC. The moment has come to move
from the re-search and development phase to a pilot operations phase that will integrate proven
technologies and components to build a mu ltimegawatt-scale OTEC sys-tem on an ocean latform.
The deployment and long-term oper-ation of such a pilot plant that uses scal-able technologies will
result in lessons for achieving full-scale systems and driving down costs to make the technol-ogy
commercially viable. This is the next step required for the true commer-cialization of OTEC because
small-scale or land-based facilities, while good for demonstration purposes, will not yield the full
knowledge needed to advance OTEC commercialization. Like all industry breakthroughs, real-izing
OTEC's potential will require in-vestment and more government support. Developmental
momentum must be capitalized on now so that OTEC becomes a renewable energy so-lution of
today, instead of yet another challenge to be solved by future gener-ations.
China Rise Bad
Aff Yes conflict now
China conflict is likely in the squo flashpoints lead to miscalc and escalation
Goldstein 13 David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations and
Director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary China at the University of Pennsylvania
(Avery, Chinas Real and Present Danger, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139651/avery-goldstein/chinas-real-and-present-
danger)//js
It might seem that the prospects for a crisis of this sort in U.S.-Chinese relations have
diminished in recent years as tensions over Taiwan have cooled, defusing the powder keg that has driven
much Chinese and U.S. military planning in East Asia since the mid-1990s. But other potential flash points have
emerged. As China and its neighbors squabble over islands and maritime rights in the East
China and South China seas, the United States has reiterated its treaty commitments to defend
two of the countries that are contesting Chinas claims (Japan and the Philippines) and has
nurtured increasingly close ties with a third (Vietnam). Moreover, the Obama administrations pivot, or
rebalancing, to Asia, a diplomatic turn matched by planned military redeployments, has signaled that Washington is prepared to
get involved in the event of a regional conflict. Also, the United States insists that international law affords it freedom of navigation
in international waters and airspace, defined as lying beyond a countrys 12-mile territorial limit. China, by contrast, asserts that
other countries military vessels and aircraft are not free to enter its roughly 200-mile-wide exclusive economic zone without
express permission -- a prohibition that, given Beijings territorial claims, could place much of the South China Sea and the airspace
above it off-limits to U.S. military ships and planes. Disputes over freedom of navigation have already caused confrontations
between China and the United States, and they remain a possible trigger for a serious crisis. It is true that China and the United
States are not currently adversaries -- certainly not in the way that the Soviet Union and the United States were during the Cold War.
But the risk of a U.S.-Chinese crisis might actually be greater than it would be if Beijing and Washington were locked in a zero-sum,
life-and-death struggle. As armed adversaries on hair-trigger alert, the Soviet Union and the United States understood that their
fundamentally opposed interests might bring about a war. After going through several nerve-racking confrontations over Berlin and
Cuba, they gained an understanding of each others vital interests -- not to be challenged without risking a crisis -- and developed
mechanisms to avoid escalation. China and the United States have yet to reach a similar shared understanding about vital interests
or to develop reliable means for crisis management. Neither China nor the United States has clearly defined its vital interests across
broad areas of the western Pacific. In recent years, China has issued various unofficial statements about its core interests that have
sometimes gone beyond simply ensuring the territorial and political integrity of the mainland and its claim to sovereignty over
Taiwan. Beijing has suggested, for example, that it might consider the disputed areas of the East China and South China seas to be
core interests. Washington has also been vague about what it sees as its vital interests in the region. The United States hedges on the
question of whether Taiwan falls under a U.S. security umbrella. And the United States stance on the maritime disputes involving
China and its neighbors is somewhat confusing: Washington has remained neutral on the rival sovereignty claims and insisted that
the disputes be resolved peacefully but has also reaffirmed its commitment to stand by its allies in the event that a conflict erupts.
Such Chinese and U.S. ambiguity about the redlines that cannot be crossed without risking
conflict increases the chances that either side could take steps that it believes are safe but that
turn out to be unexpectedly provocative. MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE COLD WAR? Uncertainty about what
could lead either Beijing or Washington to risk war makes a crisis far more likely, since neither side knows when, where, or just how
hard it can push without the other side pushing back. This situation bears some resemblance to that of the early Cold War, when it
took a number of serious crises for the two sides to feel each other out and learn the rules of the road. But todays environment might
be even more dangerous. The balance of nuclear and conventional military power between China and
the United States, for example, is much more lopsided than the one that existed between the Soviet Union and
the United States. Should Beijing and Washington find themselves in a conflict, the huge U.S.
advantage in conventional forces would increase the temptation for Washington to threaten to or
actually use force. Recognizing the temptation facing Washington, Beijing might in turn feel
pressure to use its conventional forces before they are destroyed. Although China could not reverse the
military imbalance, it might believe that quickly imposing high costs on the United States would be the best way to get it to back off.
The fact that both sides have nuclear arsenals would help keep the situation in check, because both sides would want to avoid actions
that would invite nuclear retaliation. Indeed, if only nuclear considerations mattered, U.S.-Chinese crises would be very stable and
not worth worrying about too much. But the two sides conventional forces complicate matters and undermine the stability provided
by nuclear deterrence. During a crisis, either side might believe that using its conventional forces
would confer bargaining leverage, manipulating the other sides fear of escalation through what the economist Thomas
Schelling calls a competition in risk-taking. In a crisis, China or the United States might believe that it valued what was at stake
more than the other and would therefore be willing to tolerate a higher level of risk. But because using conventional
forces would be only the first step in an unpredictable process subject to misperception,
missteps, and miscalculation, there is no guarantee that brinkmanship would end before it led to
an unanticipated nuclear catastrophe. China, moreover, apparently believes that nuclear deterrence opens the door to
the safe use of conventional force. Since both countries would fear a potential nuclear exchange, the Chinese seem to think
that neither they nor the Americans would allow a military conflict to escalate too far. Soviet leaders,
by contrast, indicated that they would use whatever military means were necessary if war came -- which is one reason why war never
came. In addition, Chinas official no first use nuclear policy, which guides the Chinese militarys preparation and
training for conflict, might reinforce Beijings confidence that limited war with the United States
would not mean courting nuclear escalation. As a result of its beliefs, Beijing might be less cautious about taking
steps that would risk triggering a crisis. And if a crisis ensued, China might also be less cautious about firing the first shot. Such
beliefs are particularly worrisome given recent developments in technology that have dramatically improved the precision and
effectiveness of conventional military capabilities. Their lethality might confer a dramatic advantage to the side that attacks first,
something that was generally not true of conventional military operations in the main European theater of U.S.-Soviet
confrontation. Moreover, because the sophisticated computer and satellite systems that guide contemporary weapons are highly
vulnerable to conventional military strikes or cyberattacks, todays more precise weapons might be effective only if they are used
before an adversary has struck or adopted countermeasures. If peacetime restraint were to give way to a search for advantage in a
crisis, neither China nor the United States could be confident about the durability of the systems managing its advanced
conventional weapons. Chinese analysts seem to overestimate how easy it is to send signals through military actions and
underestimate the risks of miscommunication. Under such circumstances, both Beijing and Washington
would have incentives to initiate an attack. China would feel particularly strong pressure, since
its advanced conventional weapons are more fully dependent on vulnerable computer networks,
fixed radar sites, and satellites. The effectiveness of U.S. advanced forces is less dependent on these most vulnerable
systems. The advantage held by the United States, however, might increase its temptation to strike
first, especially against Chinas satellites, since it would be able to cope with Chinese retaliation in kind.
Aff US Hedging Key
Liberalism is wrong the US must counterbalance China to preserve peace
Pei 14 Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College (Minxin, How China and
America See Each Other And Why They Are on a Collision Course, Foreign Affairs, March 12,
2014, http://www.gmfus.org/archives/how-china-and-america-see-each-other-and-why-they-
are-on-a-collision-course/)//js
For the past three decades, U.S. policy toward China has rested on two assumptions, one based on liberalism and the other on
realism. The first, liberal assumption is that as China integrates into the existing international
order through trade and investment, it will inevitably, out of sheer self-interest, accept that
order and take part in maintaining it. The second assumption, grounded in realism, is that until
China becomes such a stakeholder (and even once it does), the United States ought to maintain the
alliances and military might that allow it to deter and, if necessary, counter any Chinese actions
that might threaten to undermine the existing world order. The worrying dynamics on display in Debating
China should tip the scales in favor of the realist view. The liberal assumption seemed more valid when China
was relatively weak and lacked the ability to directly challenge the U.S.-led order. But what
many liberals have overlooked is that Chinas current acquiescence in this order does
not add up to an endorsement of it. Given the incompatibilities between the defining characteristics of the
international system (namely, openness and rule-governed behavior) and those of Chinas domestic regime (closed politics and the
arbitrary exercise of power), it is doubtful that Chinese elites will ever view the Western order as
legitimate, even if they concede its practical usefulness. As a result, as China continues to grow stronger, it will
seek either to modify the existing order or, if such an endeavor proves too risky or too costly, to
construct a parallel order more to its liking. Such an order would not necessarily stand in direct conflict with the
U.S.-led order, in the way that the Soviet bloc did, but it would have its own rules, exclude the West, and allow China to play a
dominant role. Indeed, Beijings investments in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the planned BRICS development bank
(a joint financial institution to be established by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) suggest that China is already moving
down this path. Chinas controversial establishment last November of an air defense identification zone
that overlaps with those of Japan and South Korea dramatically raised the risks of conflict with
the United States and its allies. And it has further vindicated the realists warning that China will not hesitate to challenge
the Western order once it has the ability to do so. The best American response to such behavior would be to
continue its policy of strategic hedging -- an approach, as explained by Michael Green of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, that backstops engagement by shoring up relations with key maritime allies and
partners and ensuring that states within the region are not easily intimidated by growing
Chinese power. Strategic hedging can reassure Chinas neighbors and make Beijing think twice about advancing its interests
through coercion. Meanwhile, liberalism offers no plausible alternative to such a policy, especially given
how well versed in realism and balance-of-power tactics Chinas current leaders are. Of course, a
policy of hedging, as typified by the pivot to Asia, will only confirm Beijings long-held suspicion that
Washingtons liberal rhetoric masks a hard-nosed determination to perpetuate U.S. dominance.
But that is a price the United States must be prepared to pay. Until now, U.S. policymakers have
relied on a two-pronged approach of hedging and engagement, drawing on both realist and liberal ideas about China. But as Chinese
power continues to grow, maintaining such a balance will become harder than ever.

Off-Case Answers
Japan CP
2AC
US should cooperate with Japan on OTEC
Bruch 94, Vicki L. Bruch is part of Energy Policy and Planning Department Sandia National Laboratories
in New Mexico, (An assessment of research and development leadership in ocean energy
technologies, http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/10154003, 4/1/1994) Kerwin
Cooperative agreements with the UK and/or Japan would be beneficial to the United States (US),
particularly now that US government funding of all ocean energy R&D has stopped. The agreements
would benefit the US in cost-sharing and technology transfer and would aid in ensuring the US maintains
both knowledge and a presence in the world energy market for ocean energy technologies
Doesnt solve food US leadership on aquaculture and marine food production is
necessary no other country has the expertise, technology, or research capabilities
thats Yoza
Doesnt solve warming US key to global environmental strategies
Esty & Ivanova 8 Director Yale Center Environmental Policy
(Daniel C. Esty, Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University, Director of the
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for Business & Environment at Yale, Maria
Ivanova, Assistant Professor of Government and Environmental Policy at The College of William and
Mary and the Director of the Global Environmental Governance Project at the Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy, Reclaiming U.S. Leadership in Global Environmental Governance, SAIS
Review, Volume 28, Number 2, Summer-Fall 2008, pp. 57-75)
The Bush Administrations go-it-alone strategy in security issues has mirrored a similar unilateralism in the international environmental domain. Once a leader in international environmental
policy, the United States has lost much of its political influence today. What is more, U.S. withdrawal from multilateralism has left the United Nationsthe imperfect but important instrument
for international cooperationin limbo, neither strengthened nor abandoned,1 threatening the ability of the world community to resolve fundamental global problems. Two key dynamics
now mark international environmental policy. First, while it is widely recognized that U.S. engagement and cooperation is not just important, but historically seen as essential for progress,
other nations today seem willing to move ahead with or without the United States. Germany, for example, announced a national greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 40 percent by
2020 and threatened to boycott the U.S. major emitters initiative launched outside the Kyoto framework. That the United States could have gotten itself crosswise with so many other
nations on so many issues is unprecedented. As Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute, recently observed,
the extraordinary degree of anger and confrontation on environmental matters reflects increasing
alarm on climate change and the level of frustration with the U.S.2 At the same time, many U.S. governors and mayors have launched
state and local initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California has gone so far as to open talks with the European Union on how to link his state-
level initiatives with Europes emerging carbon market. Second, the Bush Administrations reflexive unilateralism on international concernswhether environmental, economic, or security
represents a break with the prevailing presumption since World War II favoring cooperation [End Page 58] and multilateralism through NATO, OECD, and other regional bodies, if not the UN.
The go-it-alone approach is especially difficult to justify on issues that are inescapably global in scope, such as climate change. Even if the United States were able to eliminate its greenhouse
gas emissions entirely, climate change would not be stopped. The build-up of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide driven by rising emissions in China, India, Indonesia, and other
developing countries would continue, leaving the United States exposed to the threat of global warming, increased intensity of windstorms, altered rainfall patterns, melting ice caps, and
rising sea levels. These dynamics beg two questions: Can progress on any of the difficult global environmental issues be achieved without the participation and leadership of the United States?
Conversely, can the United States shoulder the burden of addressing such concerns without the cooperation of the rest of the global community? In this article, we address these core
questions. We argue that the next President of the United States must re-engage with other nations. Success in protecting the planet from
climate change cannot be achieved by the United States acting on its own. International cooperation is essential. Similar collaborative
efforts at the global scale will be required to protect the planets biological diversity, restore the vibrancy of
the worlds fisheries, prevent the spread of persistent organic pollutants, conserve forests , and other issues that are inescapably trans-
boundary in nature. We contend, moreover, that not only is U.S. participation critical, but U.S. leadership is crucial
and necessary to achieve successful environmental outcomes. The U.S. environmental footprint is
larger than any other countrys. The United States consumes a disproportionate share of the worlds energy and natural resources. With less than 5 percent of the
world population, the United States uses 25 percent of the worlds fossil fuel resourcesaccounting for nearly 25 percent of the worlds annual coal burning, 26 percent of the worlds oil, and
27 percent of the worlds natural gas.3 It also accounts for 18.5 percent of the consumption of global forestry products and 13.7 percent of the worlds water usage. The United States is in a
unique position. Given its economic and strategic power as well as its financial and technological prowess,
U.S. leadership could influence international environmental policy and promote effective
environmental governance . Conversely, the record of the past fifteen years has demonstrated that
when the United States declines to exercise leadership, the impact is significant.4 Little progress is made without the
United States. Reasserting global environmental leadership, however, will not be easy for the next U.S. president. There are considerable domestic challenges [End Page 59] as the U.S. public
remains deeply ambivalent about international entanglements and international organizationseven those related to protecting the planet.

Doesnt solve Chinas rise or tech leadership US is key to prevent modernization and
lashout from China
American oil dependence undermines US hegemony
Deutch and Schlesinger 6(John Deutch, former Director of Central Intelligence, and James R. Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and
former Secretary of Energy, The National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, Independent Task Force Report No. 58, Project Director: David G. Victor,
Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations Press, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pdf) IF
The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and U.S. national security. Major energy suppliers from Russia to
Iran to Venezuelahave been increasingly able and willing to use their energy resources to pursue
their strategic and political objectives. Major energy consumersnotably the United States, but other
countries as wellare finding that their growing dependence on imported energy increases their
strategic vulnerability and constrains their ability to pursue a broad range of foreign policy and
national security objectives. Dependence also puts the United States into increasing competition with
other importing countries, notably with todays rapidly growing emerging economies of China and India. At best, these trends will challenge
U.S. foreign policy; at worst, they will seriously strain relations between the United States and these
countries. This report focuses on the foreign policy issues that arise from dependence on energy traded in world markets and outlines a strategy for response. And because U.S.
reliance on the global market for oil, much of which comes from politically unstable parts of the world, is greater than for any other primary energy source, this report is mainly about oil. To
a lesser degree it also addresses natural gas. Put simply, the reliable and affordable supply of energyenergy securityis an increasingly prominent feature of the international political
landscape and bears on the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy. At the same time, however, the United States has largely continued to treat energy policy as something that is separate and
distinct substantively and organizationallyfrom foreign policy. This must change. The United States needs not merely to coordinate but to integrate energy issues with its foreign
policy. The challenge over the next several decades is to manage the consequences of unavoidable
dependence on oil and gas that is traded in world markets and to begin the transition to an economy
that relies less on petroleum. The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma. For
the United States, with 4.6 percent of the worlds population using 25 percent of the worlds oil, the
transition could be especially disruptive.
Impact is nuclear War
Thayer 6 (professor of security studies @ Missouri State Bradley, The National Interest, In Defense of
Primacy, November/December, p. 32-37)

A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power-the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against
primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because
the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of pri-
macy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective
engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States
abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the
United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil
American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the
dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers
the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that
will remain the case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining
American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action but they fall to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are
reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point
the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world,
that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to
the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on re-
trenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less
secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play
in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising
powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its
commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American
wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom,
predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If
there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such
threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from .American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to
attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical,
on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global com-
mon"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space-allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a
consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is
increased.' This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy
is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this
is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for
their own purposes, their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties
and other informal arrangements-and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War
when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S.
primacy--and the bandwagoning effect-has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United
States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of
like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows
the United States to operate with allies outside of the where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save
the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A.
Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They
are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezeula. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as
toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most
important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if
necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United
States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's
power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba-it is
an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient
relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and
statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current
international order - free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing de-
mocratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the
current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen
when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the
order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as
assuredly. As country and western great Rai Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to
ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The
first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were
historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and
Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say
it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does
reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the
United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries
concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be
sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically,
the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they
do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence
with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush
Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why
democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will
have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their
people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even
though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to
democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like
Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy
has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has
labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets.
The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the
Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be
competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the
development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian
foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal
now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and
globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the
strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides
Perm
US must cooperate with Japan on OTEC
Bruch 94, Vicki L. Bruch is part of Energy Policy and Planning Department Sandia National Laboratories
in New Mexico, (An assessment of research and development leadership in ocean energy
technologies, http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/10154003, 4/1/1994) Kerwin
Research and development work in the study countries could potentially be of benefit to US
researchers. Only two study countries, the UK and Japan, are performing R&D that would benefit US
R&D efforts. One tool that could be used to exploit the ocean energy R&D potential of these two
countries is a cooperative agreement between the US and another " country. The benefits of a
cooperative agreement include both cost-sharing and information-sharing. The cooperative agreement
would also ensure that the US maintains a presence in the ocean energy technology market, even
though the market for these technologies does not appear large. Cooperative agreements can aid in
passing new technologies jointly developed by US and foreign researchers to US industry. This is
particularly crucial now that the US government is no longer sponsoring ocean energy R&D. Cooperative
agreements could prove to be beneficial to the US. One benefit would include cost-sharing. Ocean
energy technologies tend to be quite expensive to develop and demonstrate. Sharing these costs with
another country would help ensure that the US remains active in ocean energy R&D without causing
major strains on the federal budget. Another benefit of a cooperative agreement with either Japan or
the UK would be to allow the US to tap into the expertise of the researchers in that country. Some of the
ocean energy technologies being developed overseas could have important applications in other
industries, such as construction and offshore drilling for oil and natural gas (in particular, the technology
used to develop long pipelines needed for ocean energy could be applicable to the oil and gas industry).
Cooperative agreements will aid US industry in maintaining a market presence both in existing markets
(offshore oil drilling) and new markets (ocean energy).
Environment DA
AT Generic
None of their evidence assumes deep water condenser design-it
resolves every issue
Baird 14 --Owner of the company called Global Warming Mitigation Method, claimed by
some the state-of-the-art and most viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste, BS in
Chemistry at The University of Calgary, Works with organizations such as United Nations
Sustainable Development, Environmental Services Professionals in Western Canada, and
Aquaculture Projects. (Baird is having a moderated debate in the comments of an article written
by Nordhaus and Shellenberg, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are leading global
thinkers on energy, climate, security, human development, and politics. Moderate
Environmentalists Go Nuclear, May 9th 2014
http://theenergycollective.com/michaelshellenberger/378026/moderate-environmentalists-go-
nuclear)//CS
Jim Baird says: Bill, I recently put up a video that addresses these issues but I will
summarize. The overall themodynamic efficiency of OTEC is low and you do have to move
a great deal of heat to the deep but this is an environmental benefit because on the surface
this heat drives tropical storms and sea level rise. The recent warming hiatus is believed to
have been caused by the movement of surface heat to a depth of about 100 to 300 meters
in the Eastern Pacific due to unusually strong trade winds. Indications are this will be an
El Nio year which could return a good portion of that heat making this year and next
record setters. OTEC as I and a small group of others propose it should be implemented
uses a deep water condenser design, which would move "a great deal" of surface heat to a
depth of 1000 meters thus making it that much more difficult for this heat to return plus
the fact this surface heat would be constantly driven to these depths by large scale OTEC
implementation. At 1000 meters the coefficient of expansion of sea water is half that of the
tropical surface so you gain a sea level benefit by relocating some of the surface heat. The
deep water condenser also addresses conventional OTEC's cost and environmental issues.
Prof. Gerard Nihous, Department of Ocean and Resources Engineering, University of
Hawaii estimates that the maximum steady-state OTEC electrical power is about 14 TW
(Terawatts) The greatest climate risk to biological life in the oceans is thermal
stratification. Moving surface heat to deeper water reduces the problem and induces
convection that would bring the nutrients phytoplankton require to the surface, which in
turn could reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. With conventional OTEC there is also a
risk of impingement and entrainment of marine life and eutrophication due to bringing
too much nutrient rich water to the surface. With the deep water condenser design the
only water movement is at the surface over the evaporator. The working fluid has to be
pumped back to the surface rather than bringing cold water upward to the condenser. This
decreases parasitic losses of the system as you are moving about 1/20th the amount of
fluid. At the surface wave action and disbursement of the evaporator can limit the impact
on sea life. Regarding the thermohaline circulation, Nihous takes this into consideration
in his estimate of 14 terawatts. I also have considered a counter-current heat flow system
that could lessen this impact even more. The lesson from Nature the past fifteen years
would seem to indicate that sea level rise would in fact be reduced by moving heat to deep
water. When this heat drives tropical storms, it is fast tracked to the poles where it melts
ice and more ominously permafrost. As to cloud formation, low-level clouds reflect
sunlight and lead to cooling, high level clouds warm the planet increasing the the
greenhouse effect. Recent studies indicate that as the ocean warms, low-level clouds tend
to dissipate creating a positive feedback warming cycle. To the best of my knowledge there
is currently only one OTEC plant operating at a capacity on only 50 MW. I think however
this is more a reflection on the cost and environmental problems of the conventional
design, rather than the one my colleagues and I are trying to promote.

AT Subtropics
Doesnt destroy ecosystems
Vega 02 [2002, Luis Vega, Ph.D is from Hawaii National Marine Renewable Energy Center
at the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute of University of Hawaii, Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Primer , http://www.uprm.edu/aceer/pdfs/MTSOTECPublished.pdf]
OTEC offers one of the most benign power production technologies, since the
handling of hazardous substances is limited to the working fluid (e.g., ammonia), and no
noxious by-products are generated. The carbon dioxide out-gassing from the seawater
used for the operation of an OC-OTEC plant is less than 1 percent of the approximately
700 grams per kWh amount released by fuel oil plants. The value is even lower in the case
of a CC-OTEC plant. A sustained flow of cold, nutrient-rich, bacteria-free deep ocean
water could cause sea surface temperature anomalies and biostimulation if resident times
in the mixed layer and the euphotic zone respectively are long enough (i.e., upwelling).
The euphotic zone is the upper layer of the ocean in which there is sufficient light for
photosynthesis. This has been taken to mean the 1 percent-light-penetration depth (e.g.
120 m in Hawaiian waters). This is unduly conservative, because most biological activity
requires radiation levels of at least 10 percent of the sea surface value. Since light intensity
decreases exponentially with depth, the critical 10 percent-light-penetration depth
corresponds to, for example, 60 m in Hawaiian waters. The analyses of specific OTEC
designs indicate that mixed seawater returned at depths of 60 m results in a dilution
coefficient of 4 (i.e., 1 part OTEC effluent is mixed with 3 parts of the ambient seawater)
and equilibrium (neutral buoyancy) depths below the mixed layer throughout the year
(Nihous et al., 1991). This water return depth also provides the vertical
separation, from the warm water intake at about 20 m, required to avoid
reingestion into the plant. This value will vary as a function of ocean current conditions. It
follows that the marine food web should be minimally affected and that
persistent sea surface temperature anomalies should not be induced. These
conclusions need to be confirmed with actual field measurements that could be performed
with the pre-commercial plant described below.
AT Algae Blooms
Operational plants prove no algae blooms
Andrew 12 [12/3/12, Andrew has been reporting and writing on a wide range of topics at
the nexus of economics, technology, ecology/environment and society for some five years now
and citing the DOE Environmental Assessment, DOE Publishes New Study On Biological
Impact Of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC),
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/03/doe-publishes-new-study-on-biological-impact-of-
ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/ ]
A focal point in this regard is the biological and ecological effects of pumping and
discharging massive volumes of nutrient-rich deep ocean water up to near surface depths.
One cause for concern is the potential for this to result in phytoplankton blooms. Another
is the potential entrapment and mortality of organisms in OTEC system intake pipes. A
simulation and analysis performed by Oahus Makai Ocean Engineering recently
published by the Department of Energy (DOE) indicates that perturbations resulting from
operation of a 100MW OTEC plant in the waters off Oahu would not have significant
impacts on phytoplankton reproduction

Nutrients dilute very quickly
Comfort and Vega 11 [August 2011, Christina M. Comfort and Luis Vega, Ph.D are from
Hawaii National Marine Renewable Energy Center at the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute of
University of Hawaii, Environmental Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion in Hawaii,
http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Ocr/ComfortCM_2011_InOceans11MTSIEEE1922September20
11Kon_pxx-xx.pdf]
Plume models have been developed specifically for Hawaii to predict an OTEC plumes
trajectory given the known physical oceanographic conditions. The models focus on
determining the terminal depth of the plume, nutrient concentrations, and in one
modeling effort, the effects of various current speeds on the plume [5, 6]. In the
preliminary model designed by Planning Solutions, LLC, discharge depths of 50m and
100m were used [5]. The model found that the differences between a mixed
discharge and a cold discharge were insignificant, so only performed simulations
with mixed discharges on the 50m discharge. The plume sinks to its deepest depth rapidly,
and then rebounds to oscillate around an equilibrium depth. The 50 m mixed
discharge plume was detectable in the model at 76-144m at the end of the simulation.
Nitrate concentrations were quickly diluted from about 16umol/kg at the point
source to 2- 4mol/kg within about 30 horizontal meters, with the highest concentrations
in the center of the plume. Given a cold-water 100m discharge, the plume was detectable
between 134-182m at the end of the simulation. Nitrate concentrations were diluted
from 16umol/kg to 2-4 mol/kg within 40 horizontal meters of the point source [5].

Blooms easily dealt with
Upshaw 12 [May 2012, Charles Roberts Upshaw is a Mechanical Engineering PhD student
at the University of Texas at Austin, studying the interaction of electricity, thermal energy, and
water in residential houses, Thermodynamic and Economic Feasibility Analysis of a 20 MW
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Power Plant,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2012-05-5637/UPSHAW-
THESIS.pdf?sequence=1]
The primary environmental concerns relate to the unintended consequences of pumping
such massive amounts of cold water to the surface. One such concern is about what will
happen because of all the nutrients pumped up with the cold water. There are concerns of
large algal blooms forming around the plant, which could lead to a dead-zone if the water
becomes deoxygenated [35,57]. However, some think that the redistribution of nutrients
to the surface could also help promote regrowth of sh stocks by increasing food at the
bottom of the food chain [4]. To help negate the problem, many designs intend to mix the
warm and cold waters, and re-inject them back at a depth well below the surface.

AT MZ Plankton
Internal link is opposite warming kills plankton
Kirby 13 [9/813, Alex Kirby is a British journalist, specializing in environmental issues and
has his own Wikipedia page, Plankton will suffer as oceans warm,
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2013/09/plankton-will-suffer-as-oceans-warm/]
The research team, from the universities of East Anglia and Exeter, has demonstrated that
the increasing warmth caused by a changing climate will upset the natural cycles
of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and phosphorous. This will affect the plankton, making
it scarcer and so causing problems for fish and other species higher up the food
chain. There are also likely to be implications for climate change, but just what they will
be, the team leader says, is far from clear.
Electric Vehicles CP
Aff Squo solves
The US has already offered incentives to EV development
Hawkins et al 13 (Troy R., Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of
Conventional and Electric Vehicles, Journal of Industrial Ecology 17.1 (2013): 53-64)//js
Among available transport alternatives, electric vehicles (EVs) have reemerged as a strong candidate. The European Union
(EU) and the United States, among others, have pro- vided incentives, plans, and strategies, at
different levels of ambition, for the introduction of EVs (European Commission 2010; Greater London
Authority 2009; IEA 2009; U.S. De- partment of Energy 2011). One of the more ambitious targets is proposed by
a consortium of the International Energy Agency (IEA) (2009) and eight countries (China, France,
Germany, Japan, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the United States), which aims to reach a
combined total of 20 million full and plug-in hybrid EVs by 2020. Meanwhile, battery-powered
EVs are becoming an important component of automotive manufac- turers strategies. Both
Mercedes and Ford have clear ambitions in this area (Daimler AG 2010b; Ford Motor Company 2011). The first generation of mass-
produced EVs has just entered the market (e.g., the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Nissan Leaf, Renault Kan- goo, GM Volt, and Ford Electric
Focus).

States empirically solve through their own PV incentive programs
SPEA 11 - School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University (Plug-in Electric
Vehicles: A Practical Plan for Progress, written by an expert panel, February 2011,
http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/TEP_combined.pdf)//AL
Many states have introduced their own incentive programs to encourage the production,
purchase, and use of electric vehicles. The most popular policy instrument used by states is a tax
incentive aimed at reducing the incremental cost of purchasing an electric vehicle. These
incentives can take the form of a rebate, an income tax credit, or a sales tax exemption.
California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Utah, and Washington have incentives that range from a $750 income tax credit (Utah) to a
rebate of up to $20,000 for commercial PEVs (California). Recently, Tennessee also announced a rebate of $2,500 on the first 1,000
PEVs sold in the state. 225 New Jersey and Washington offer state sales tax exemptions for BEVs, a policy that DOE models suggest
is quite effective at stimulating sales of BEVs. 226 Washington offers PHEVs a more modest exemption from its 0.3% motor vehicle
tax. Montana has chosen to offer a tax incentive of $500 for the conversion of a vehicle to run on electricity, but has not added any
incentives for the purchase of a new electric vehicle. Similarly, Florida has used stimulus money to fund the conversion of 100
Priuses to run on electricity. Utah offers a larger tax credit for those who convert their existing vehicle than for those who buy a new
electric vehicle ($2,500 compared to $750). Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, and Oregon offer conversion tax credits of equal or lesser
value compared to the tax credits they offer for vehicle purchase. Another popular option for states is policy that
encourages manufacturing of PEVs or their batteries in the state. Implemented by Indiana,
Michigan, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, these policies
include property tax exemptions, tax credits for purchasing manufacturing equipment, and tax
credits based on kilowatt hours of battery capacity produced. Several of these credits are not
specifically targeted to promote PEVs, but apply to the manufacture of all alternative fuel
vehicles. Other states, mainly in the Midwest and Plains states, have alternative fuel credits, but
exclude electricity from their definition of alternative fuels.
Aff Cant solve emissions
Cant solve emissions coal generated electricity still makes gas powered vehicles
a better alternative in some regions
Anair 12 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is the leading science-based nonprofit
working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific
research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible
changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. (Don, State of
CHARGE Electric Vehicles Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United
States, June 2012, UCS, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-
car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf)//js
Is driving on electricity instead of gasoline a good choice when it comes to reducing emissions responsible for climate change? The
answer is yes. But because differ- ent regions of the United States receive their electricity from
different mixes of power plant types, how good depends on where the vehicle is charged. For
example, using wind- or solar-generated electricity to power an electric vehicle can result in almost
no global warming emissions. By contrast, the use of coal-generated electricity releases
significant amounts of global warming emissions, similar to those from an average gasoline vehicle. The good
news is that no matter where you live in the United States, electric vehicles charged on the power grid have lower global warming
emissions than the average gasoline-based vehicle sold today. In some areaswhere coal makes up a large percentage of the
power plant mixthe most efficient gasoline- powered vehicles will actually deliver greater global
warming benefits than EVs. In other areas of the country, however, where cleaner sources of electricity prevail, EVs are far
and away the best choice.
EVs cant solve warming because of coal emissions from electricity generation
Hirsch 12 (Jerry, Electric cars can be no better for global warming, in some cities, April
16, 2012, LA TImes, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/16/business/la-fi-mo-electric-
vehicles-20120416)//js
Apparently, location, location, location is the latest twist on electric vehicles and the
environment: Whether an electric car such as the Nissan Leaf protects the atmosphere from
greenhouse gases depends on where it's charged, according to a new study. Such a car is no
better than a standard gasoline-powered subcompact such as a Hyundai Elantra in cities such as Denver
and Wichita, but far exceeds even the best hybrids in Southern California. Thats the findings of a study
of electricity generation, greenhouse gas emissions and electric vehicles by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The variations
in how beneficial an electric vehicle is for reducing pollution that causes global warming result
from regional differences in how electricity is generated. The scientific organization, which is a vocal proponent
for federal requirements mandating increased fuel efficiency in vehicles, said in regions covering 45% of the nations population,
electricity is generated with a larger share of cleaner energy resources such as renewables and natural gas meaning that EVs
produce lower global warming emissions than even the most efficient gasoline hybrids. But in regions where coal still
makes up a large percentage of the electricity grid mix, the most efficient gasoline-powered
hybrid vehicles will yield lower global warming emissions than an electric vehicle. However, electric
vehicles tend to reduce oil consumption in nearly all regions, the group said. The Union of Concerned Scientists also said that
electric vehicle drivers can save $750 to $1,200 a year compared with operating an average new compact gasoline vehicle with a fuel
economy rating of 27 miles per gallon that is fueled with gasoline at $3.50 per gallon. The savings depend on how much a local utility
charges for electricity and that varies widely between regions. Regardless of location, that range of savings requires charging on the
lowest-cost electricity plan and that may require a switch from their current rate plan to the most advantageous one often limiting
time of use to night hours -- offered by their utility. The group noted that that was especially important in California. It pays for
California EV owners to learn about the different kinds of rate plans their local utility has to offer when plugging in their vehicle at
home. They may be leaving hundreds of dollars per year in savings on the table. said Don Anair, the reports author and senior
engineer for UCSs Clean Vehicles Program. When it comes to pollution, charging an EV in the cleanest electricity regions, which
include California, New York (excluding Long Island), the Pacific Northwest and parts of Alaska, yields global warming emissions
equivalent to a gasoline-powered vehicle achieving over 70 mpg. The group said about 37% of Americans live in regions where an
electric vehicle has the equivalent global warming emissions of a 41 to 50 mpg gasoline vehicle, similar to the best gasoline hybrids
available today. For example, charging an EV in Florida and across most of Texas yields global
warming emissions equivalent to a 46 to 47 mpg gasoline vehicle; this is the fuel economy level of vehicles
such as the Honda Civic Hybrid (44 mpg) and Toyota Prius Hybrid (50 mpg). But the group said 18% of Americans live in
regions where an electric vehicle has the equivalent global warming emissions of a 31 to 40 mpg
gasoline vehicle, making some gasoline hybrid vehicles a better choice with respect to global
warming emissions. The Rocky Mountain grid region (covering Colorado and parts of neighboring states) has the highest
emissions intensity of any regional grid in the United States, which means an EV will produce global warming emissions equivalent
to a gasoline vehicle achieving about 33 mpg. Gasoline- powered cars with fuel economy at this level include the Hyundai Elantra (33
mpg) and the Ford Fiesta (34 mpg), the group found.
Aff Hydrogen Key
Hydrogen fuel cells are key to reducing emissions EVs are insufficient
Thomas 12 Consultant at Clean Car Options, Ph.D, Electrical Engineering (Sandy, How
green are electric vehicles?, International journal of hydrogen energy 37.7 (2012): 6053-
6062.)//js
To substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependence, society must curb gasoline
and diesel fuel in the operation of conventional vehicles. These reductions in transportation GHGs and oil
consumption will require a port- folio of alternative vehicles. No single alternative will suffice. The Obama
administrations selection of battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids as the only options for
their alternative vehicle strategy is particularly short-sighted and ill-advised since: Battery
electric vehicles alone, even if they replaced all small cars, all small vans, all small pickup trucks and all small SUVs plus
50% of all midsize passenger cars in the U.S. would only reduce LDV GHGs by less than 7.5%, far less than
the 83% reduction below 2009 levels required to achieve an overall reduction of 80% below
1990 GHG levels, and they would only cut petroleum consumption by less than 25%. Therefore BEVs
alone will not be able to make substantial reductions in GHGs or oil consumption until a) higher specific power batteries are
developed so that BEVs can replace larger cars with longer driving capacity, and b) almost all carbon is eliminated from electricity
generation. If, in addition to the small BEVs mentioned above, plug-in hybrids replace all other vehicles, (all gasoline vehicles would
be replaced by either BEVs or PHEVs) then GHGs would be reduced by less than 25% and oil consumption by less than 67%. If, on
the other hand, fuel cell electric vehicles replaced all vehicles in the U.S., then GHGs would
immediately be reduced by more than 40% and oil consumption would be cut by nearly 100%,
even if all hydrogen was still made from natural gas. Greater GHG reductions would be achieved
as hydrogen is made from low-carbon sources such as from landfill gas or from waste water treatment plant
anaerobic digester gas, or, eventually, from water electrolysis using renewable electricity or nuclear power. The need to
reduce GHGs and oil consumption from the transportation sector is too urgent to limit our
options at this time. We need to develop all of the above.


Politics
Link Turn
Gop loves removing energy regulations bipart support
Colman 13 Zack, The Hill Reporter, 3/28 (GOP lawmakers push to remove energy
regulations, The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290783-gop-lawmakers-
outline-agenda-for-energy-subpanel | ADM)
"The largest threat to this path of security continues to be ever increasing regulations that
unnecessarily limit or impede the safe and responsible production of our energy resources and
stifle the ability to maintain a diverse electricity generation portfolio, subcommittee Chairman
Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) wrote in a statement announcing their Idea
Labs initiative.
The lawmakers highlighted the concepts in a press call Thursday because they think they can
pass as legislation.
But their goals, which are similar to last session, are a difficult sell in the Senate. They could
possibly count on support from some centrist Democrats, but likely not enough to be filibuster-
proof.
Instead, some of the best bets for legislation might stem from ongoing from bicameral,
bipartisan talks between Capitol Hill energy leaders.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member Sen. Lisa
Murkowski (R-Alaska), Whitfield and the staff for House Energy and Commerce ranking
member Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have met recently to hammer out legislative items that
could pass both chambers.
Whitfield said they all would meet again in three to four weeks to devise more specific proposals
on issues like efficiency and so forth. He said those discussions would continue regularly to
find areas of common interest.
Murkowski has said hydropower, energy efficiency and nuclear waste storage are three of the
policy areas with momentum.
While those meetings are helping lawmakers close in on some specific legislation, Whitfield said
no concrete vehicles exist for many of the issues his subcommittee is pursuing.
The Republicans said their achieving their policy aims would boost domestic energy
supplies, reduce energy costs to help spur manufacturing, generate more federal revenues and
lower electricity costs for consumers.