You are on page 1of 245

***Rare Earth Metals DA

Hegemony DA

1NC Shell
Rare earth supply and demand is stable now but supply is
limited the plan causes supply shortages and
bottlenecks
Snyder, Bloomberg writer, 12

[Jim, 1/5/12, Bloomberg News, Five Rare Earths Crucial for Clean Energy
Seen In Short Supply, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/five-rareearths-crucial-for-clean-energy-seen-in-short-supply.html]
Falling Prices While prices of rare earths fell in the second half of 2011, they
remain volatile, leading some companies to search for ways to consider
reducing reliance on the minerals, the Energy Department said. The
department is also researching how to use rare-earths more efficiently,
including through recycling, and to increase production in the U.S. The
departments Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy has given about
$31.6 million to 14 research projects to study ways to reduce or eliminate use
of rare-earth elements. In Congress, at least a dozen bills have been
introduced supporting development of a domestic rare-earth industry,
including through U.S. loan guarantees, according to the Energy Department
report. None of the measures has passed. The biggest challenge is a
permitting system that has historically taken multiple years to go from
exploration to production, Daniel McGroarty, president of Lonoke, Arkansasbased U.S. Rare Earths Inc. (UREE), said in an interview. The company has
claims in Colorado, Montana and Idaho, he said. Worldwide Demand The five
minerals most at risk of supply disruptions are used to make wind turbines,
solar panels, electric car batteries and energy-efficient lights, according to
the report. A 2007 law requiring the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs
may increase demand for terbium, europium and yttrium, used in compact
fluorescent bulbs that comply with higher efficiency standards, according to
the report. While these materials are generally used in low volumes relative
to other resources, the anticipated deployment of clean-energy technologies
could substantially increase worldwide demand, the report said. Smaller
mining companies have difficulty raising the $100 million to $1 billion it takes
to open a rare-earth ore mine, while global mining companies are often not
interested because of the relatively small size of the $3 billion market and its
unpredictability, the report said. The report also recommends greater
emphasis on education and job training. Strengthening the U.S. position
across the supply chain requires a capable workforce, the report said.

The plan causes massive bottlenecks and tradeoffs that


collapse competing industries and prevent a transition to
renewables
Spence, writer for EurActiv, 11

[Timothy, 11/16/11, "Rare-earth shortage to hamper clean energy: EU study,"


www.euractiv.com/sustainability/rare-earth-shortage-hamper-clean-news508967]
Looming shortages of metals that are in high demand and dominated by a
single supplier China threaten Europes goals for cleaner transport and
sustainable energy, says a new study prepared for the European Commission.

The study by the Joint Research Centre says supply shortfalls of component
metals in the next two decades risk the production of solar, wind and nuclear
technologies as well as electric vehicles and carbon-capture systems. This
adds more evidence to the fact that Europe has to look within itself and
more toward waste management, to re-use existing metals, said Dr.
Raymond Moss, lead author of the report. The findings could have serious
implications for the EUs Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in
2050 that hinges on development of renewable energy, cleaner transport as
well as modernising and integrating Europes electricity grids. Such ambitions
depend heavily on the availability of neodymium, dysprosium, indium,
tellurium and gallium, metals that are in demand globally. EUs vital raw
materials The Commission has already identified many so-called rare-earth
minerals as well as metals like cobalt in its lists of 14 economically vital raw
materials that are prone to supply disruption. The JRC study is part of the
Commissions examination of raw material needs. Europe depends on imports
for nearly all of its rare-earth metals. Though many are in abundant supply on
the planet, the metals are dispersed or difficult to access, and despite their
importance to green energy, require intensive mining and processing. China
controls more than 90% of the market. In July, the World Trade Organisation
called on China to ease its export restrictions on 17 rare-earth metals
important to energy, transport and electronics manufacturing. Shortages or
limitations on supply would have serious impact on many industries. But with
solar and wind power expected to account for the biggest energy growth
markets over the next 20 years, the impact on alternative energy could be
profound. The JRC report says five metals - dysprosium, neodymium,
tellurium, gallium, and indium - are at the highest risk of supply bottlenecks
from high demand, concentration of supply and high political risks due to an
extreme concentration of supply in China. The study examines 14 rare-earth
metals. Solar energy technologies, for example, will require half the current
world supply of tellurium and 25% of the supply of indium, the report says.
Europes wind energy technology will require about 4% of the supply of both
neodymium and dysprosium. While the percent might be small, it could have
a significant effect on wind technology, Moss told EurActiv. The concern, he
said is that 90 percent of the source is in China at the moment, and they
themselves have a rapidly growing demand for the same metals whilst they
have also limited restrictions on export.

Government Incentivized renewables production trades


off with military acquisition of rare earths
Burnett, senior fellow with the Natonal Center for Policy
Analysis, 11

[Sterling, 11/1/11, NCPA, "Will Green Energy Make the United States Less
Secure?," www.ncpa.org/pub/ib103]
The more the United States embraces green energy technologies, the worse
off it will be geopolitically and economically. Demand for green energy would
fall if there were not huge government subsidies, grants and mandates,
because green energy is more expensive and less reliable than traditional
energy production. As the push to adopt rare earth-intensive energy
technologies intensifies, those concerned about U. S. energy security could
find that the tradeoff involves swapping one form of dependence for a much

more perilous one. In addition, the diversion of scarce rare earths to green
energy technologies means that there is less available for critical aerospace
and military technologies.

Rare earth acquisition is key to nuclear primacy - guided


missiles, first strike capabilities
Kennedy, President of Wings Enterprises, internationally
recognized expert on rare earths, 10

[J. Kennedy, March 2010, Critical and Strategic Failure of Rare Earth
Resources, http://www.smenet.org/rareEarthsProject/TMS-NMAB-paperV3.pdf)
The national defense issues are equally important. Rare earths are critical
components for military jet engines, guided missiles and bombs, electrical
countermeasures, anti-missile systems, satellite communication systems and
armor, yet the U.S. has no domestic sources. Innovation Drives Industry
Industry Carries the Economy Advances in Materials Science are a result of
tireless innovation; innovation seeking improvements in the performance and
characteristics of material properties or a change in their form or function.
Much of this work must eventually translate into commercial and military
applications. Today many advances in material science are achieved through
the application of rare earth oxides, elements and alloys. This group of
elements, also known as the lanthanide series, represents the only known
bridge to the next level of improved performance in the material properties
for many metallurgical alloys, electrical conductivity, and instrument
sensitivity and in some cases a mechanical or physical change in function.
These lanthanides hold unique chemical, magnetic, electrical, luminescence
and radioactive shielding characteristics. Combined with other elements they
can help maintain or alter physical and structural characteristics under
changing conditions. Today, these rare earth elements are essential to every
computer hard drive, cell phone, energy efficient light bulb, many automotive
pollution control devices and catalysts, hybrid automobiles and most, if not
all, military guidance systems and advanced armor. Tomorrow, they will be
used in ultra capacity wind turbines, magnetic refrigeration, zero emission
automobiles, superconductors, sub-light-speed computer processors, nanoparticle technologies for material and metallurgical applications, structurally
amorphous metals, next generation military armor and TERFENOL-D Radar.
America must lead in these developments. The entire U.S. defense system is
completely interdependent upon REO enhanced technologies for our most
advanced weapons guidance systems, advanced armor, secure
communications, radar, advanced radar systems, weapons triggering
systems and un-manned Drones. REO dependent weapons technologies are
predominantly represented in our first strike and un-manned capabilities.
This national defense issue is not a case of limited exposure for first-strike
capabilities. This first-strike vulnerability translates into risk exposure in every
level of our national defense system, as the system is built around our
presumptive technological and first-strike superiority. Yet the DoD has
abandon its traditional procurement protocols for strategic and critical
materials and components for weapons systems in favor of the principles of
free trade.

Loss of U.S. nuclear primacy causes global nuclear war


Caves, Senior Research Fellow in the Center for the Study
of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the National Defense
University, 10

[John P. Caves Jr., January 2010, Avoiding a Crisis of Confidence in the U.S.
Nuclear Deterrent, Strategic Forum, No. 252]
Perceptions of a compromised U.S. nuclear deterrent as described above
would have profound policy implications, particularly if they emerge at a time
when a nuclear-armed great power is pursuing a more aggressive strategy
toward U.S. allies and partners in its region in a bid to enhance its regional
and global clout. A dangerous period of vulnerability would open for the
United States and those nations that depend on U.S. protection while the
United States attempted to rectify the problems with its nuclear forces. As it
would take more than a decade for the United States to produce new nuclear
weapons, ensuing events could preclude a return to anything like the status
quo ante. The assertive, nuclear-armed great power, and other major
adversaries, could be willing to challenge U.S. interests more directly in the
expectation that the United States would be less prepared to threaten or
deliver a military response that could lead to direct conflict. They will want to
keep the United States from reclaiming its earlier power position. Allies and
partners who have relied upon explicit or implicit assurances of U.S. nuclear
protection as a foundation of their security could lose faith in those
assurances. They could compensate by accommodating U.S. rivals, especially
in the short term, or acquiring their own nuclear deterrents, which in most
cases could be accomplished only over the mid- to long term. A more nuclear
world would likely ensue over a period of years. Important U.S. interests could
be compromised or abandoned, or a major war could occur as adversaries
and/or the United States miscalculate new boundaries of deterrence and
provocation. At worst, war could lead to state-on-state employment of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on a scale far more catastrophic than
what nuclear-armed terrorists alone could inflict.

2NC Deterrence
Deterrence key to preventing global nuclear wars and acts
as a conflict dampener
Murdock, senior advisor in the CSIS International Security
Program, 8
[Clark, March 2008, The Department of Defense and the Nuclear Mission of
the 21st Century, A Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase 4 Report ISBN 978-089206-525-7]
The violence-suppressive effect of nuclear weapons has not gone away with
the end of the Cold War. Noted Cold War deterrent theorist and Nobel
economics laureate Thomas Schelling told a recent World Economic Forum
retreat (according to Thomas Barnett, the Pentagons favorite futurist) that
(1) no state that has developed nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by
another state and (2) no state armed with nuclear weapons has ever attacked
another state similarly armed.18 With his characteristic flair, Barnett
observes that the United States and the Soviet Union learned that nuclear
weapons are for having and not using. Due to the equalizing threats of
mutually assured destruction, these devices cannot win wars but only prevent
them. The same logic has heldall these decadesfor powers as diverse as
the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, with North
Korea stepping up to the plate and Iran on deck. Thus we have survived the
democratic bomb and the totalitarian bomb, as well as the capitalist bomb
and the communist bomb. In religious terms, we have survived the Christian
and atheist bombs, the Confucian and Hindu bombs and the Islamic and
Jewish bombs. Somehow, despite all the irrationalities ascribed to each new
member, the logic of nuclear deterrence holds fast.19 The proposition that
nuclear weapons make the world safe for great power competition clearly
belongs to the ranks of self-fulfilling prophecies, since it depends on the
credibility of each states nuclear deterrent. Moreover, while it doesnt make
this author sanguine about the risks of further nuclear proliferation to states,
regimes or individuals that are more difficult to deter, it seems to be the case
that, to date, possession of a nuclear weapon has made the possessor, and
its adversaries, much more cautious about embarking on courses of action
that could escalate to nuclear use.

Tomahawk Deterrence Impact


Rare earth metals are key to Tomahawk cruise missiles
Husband, writer for Harvard Law National Security
Journal, 12
[David, 3/7/12, "On-Shoring the Production of Rare Earth Metals," Harvard
Law National Security Journal, harvardnsj.org/2012/03/on-shoring-theproduction-of-rare-earth-metals/]
Rare earth metals have numerous military applications. The U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission has a mandate to submit an
annual report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and
economic relationships between the United States and the Peoples Republic
of China. According to the Commission, rare earth metals play a critical role
in sophisticated military applications including guidance and control
systems; advanced optics technologies; radar and radiation detection
equipment; and advanced communications systems. Some of the defense
related weapons and equipment that contain rare earths are: Predator
unmanned aerial vehicles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, Zumwalt-class
destroyers, night vision goggles, smart bombs, and sonar transducers. The
Commission also notes that the United States was once the world leader of
the rare earth metals industry, accounting in 1984 for at least one-third of
global exports, a position that China successfully challenged through heavy
governmental subsidies of non-profitable mines.

The Tomahawk is key to deterrence and preventing


nuclear escalation
Reynolds, Naval Postgraduate School, 98

[Guy, December, "The Nuclear-Armed Tomahawk Cruise Missile: Its Potential


Utility on United States and United Kingdom Attack Submarines,",
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA359545]
The process of analyzing complex strategic questions is called Grand
Strategy. The ability to step back and look at the entire picture has
sometimes allowed the United States to focus on long-term goals and on
shaping the future security environment rather than simply reacting to
events. Steps in any policy area should be taken only after thorough
deliberation and in the light of the nation's grand strategy. The United States
has agreed to consider the possible limitation of sea-launched nuclear
Tomahawk cruise missiles, but the United States evidently has no long-term
strategy concerning the future of nuclear Tomahawk. The nuclear Tomahawk
could be used in lieu of for gravity bombs, as a response to a rogue state or
terrorist use of a weapon of mass destruction, or as a hedge reserve weapon.
The United States should adopt a clear strategy concerning nuclear
Tomahawk cruise missiles before considering any limitations. B. THE
POSSIBLE USE OF A NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPON When might the
United States consider using a non-strategic nuclear weapon? This is a
difficult question to answer, given the accuracy and destructive capability of
modern conventional weapons. The question must be answered before
decisions are taken on the future of non-strategic nuclear weapons. The
answer depends on the political and military requirements involved. U.S.
military doctrine states that "the employment of nuclear weapons must offer

a clearly significant advantage over nonnuclear munitions." 81 While


debating the ratification of the United Nations Convention on Chemical
Weapons, the U.S. Senate attempted to clarify when the use of non-strategic
nuclear weapons might be considered. William Perry, then the Secretary of
Defense, was questioned concerning the use of chemical weapons against
United States military forces. Senator Pell asked, "If, God forbid, another
country did stage a chemical weapon attack, what would be the response:
Would it beare you thinking in terms of nuclear weapons? Are you thinking
in terms of conventional weapons? What would be the means of responding?"
82 Perry answered: We would not specify in advance what our response to a
chemical attack is except to say it would be devastating. And we have a wide
range of military capabilities to make good that threat. 83 Because politicians
are reluctant to rule out military options, they avoid defining the
circumstances in which a non-strategic nuclear weapon might be used. This
approach has been referred to as the strategy of "calculated ambiguity," Nonstrategic nuclear weapons might be employed as a possible response to the
use of a weapon of mass destruction. This might be difficult or impossible if
the responsible party cannot be identified. U.S. strategy toward weapons of
mass destruction emphasizes preventing proliferation and maintaining
capabilities that would diminish the value of their use by other nations. Part
of America's deterrent capability resides in its non-strategic nuclear weapons.
President Clinton addressed the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
in Executive Order 12938. I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States
of America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons (weapons of mass destruction") and of the means of delivering
such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and
hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. 84 President
Clinton reaffirmed the importance of this executive order by extending its
effectiveness and adding additional measures on 28 July 1998. The order
contained diplomatic, commercial, and administrative remedies to respond to
proliferation, but did not include military measures that might be considered.
The ambiguity in the political considerations for the use of a nuclear weapon
is intentional. Statements such as "all available responses" or "devastating
response" have been used to indicate that nuclear weapons could be
considered without making a clear overt threat. Nuclear weapons are used as
a tool to prevent war or to deter escalation to higher levels of violence. In the
case of WMD, a non-strategic nuclear weapon might be used to prevent
further escalation and the outbreak of a much larger general war. James
Baker has described the condition as living with ambiguity. 85 According to
Baker, The demise of the Soviet Union decreased the risk of global
thermonuclear war while increasing the possibility of lesser, but still
dangerous, regional conflict. International power has been diffused and
international discipline loosened. Under these circumstances, the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction raises the possibility of a "New World
Disorder" with a vengeance. 86 The disorder that may result is exactly why
United States nuclear policy must remain ambiguous. Ambiguity ensures that
there will be flexibility in any policy position and liminates hollow threats.
Flexibility in strategy and the strength to consider all response options are
the keys to coping with a turbulent security environment. Employment

doctrine should be unambiguous. Employment doctrine does not address


when to respond, but how to respond once authorized and ordered to do so
by civilian authority. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Doctrine for Joint Theater
Nuclear Operations describes the possible enemy forces and facilities that
might warrant a non-strategic nuclear military response. The possession or
use of weapons of mass destruction is covered under non-state actors as well
as state actors. Non-state actors and weapons of mass destruction, including
their delivery systems, are described as "likely candidates" for the use of a
nuclear weapon. 87 The best choice today against these target types might
be a single non-strategic nuclear weapon if the civilian National Command
Authority determined that the use of a nuclear weapon was indeed necessary.
The advantages offered by nuclear Tomahawk are that "heavily defended
areas may be penetrated without risk to crew, highly mobile platforms in
international waters serve as launch sites, weapons are highly accurate,
launching platform is recallable, basing issues are simplified, and maximum
stealth and surprise can be maintained prior to launch." 88 These advantages
make nuclear Tomahawk the best weapon system choice to accomplish
difficult non-strategic nuclear missions.

Nuclear deterrence prevents extinction deters rogue


states, halts proliferation, and deescalates conflicts
worldwide modernization is key.
Bruner and Cockey, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, 14
[Rear Admiral Barry, Captain Michael, February, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, Proceedings Magazine Vol. 140/2/1,332, Now Hear This We
Must Have Nuclear Deterrence,
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-02/now-hear-we-musthave-nuclear-deterrence) [Gender Modified]
We are on the precipice of a different world. As Iran pursues nuclear
capability, Kim Jong-un rattles his saber while threatening the
United States and its regional allies with a nuclear weapon. North
Koreas closest neighbors, South Korea and Japan, are watching closely,
knowing we are their shield. They live daily with the threat of an enemy that
casually and repeatedly speaks of using nukes and has demonstrated its
ability to attack without warning, as it did when its submarine sank the South
Korean ship Cheonan on 26 March 2010. Should these countries decide they
need their own nuclear weapons, they certainly have the technology and the
ability to build them, thereby significantly raising the stakes and the
likelihood of war. Enter deterrence. U.S. nuclear deterrence should:
Discourage such attacks against the United States by ensuring the
ability to deliver an overwhelming response in kind Make us resistant to
coercion by adversaries using the threat of such an attack to induce
concessions Reduce the chance of large-scale conventional war between
nuclear-armed adversaries because of the shared fear of escalation Extend
a guarantee to allies and partners, reducing the proliferation of
these weapons and, thus, the likelihood of their use The mission of our
nuclear forces is to threaten what an adversary values, thereby

averting an attack of this nature on us, our friends, or our regional


partners. Deterrence is a matter of perceptions. Its effect takes place in
the mind of an opponent living in another country with different values,
pressures, and goals. Its purpose is to influence the other[s] guys
decision making, not ours. This is so simple, yet so easy to forget. The
worlds foremost experts struggle to decipher Kim Jong-uns thought
process, but he may well believe he cannot survive without these weapons.
He may feel that they are his source of power. It is possible he believes he
holds the ultimate trump card and threatens using nuclear weapons
to influence calculations in future international engagements. Nine
countries have this capability. This means conflicts similar to those
playing out with North Korea and to a lesser degree Iran will
continue to make headlines. The value of our deterrence is that it limits
aggressors to threats. They cannot hold us or our partners at risk because we
maintain forces that are credible, survivable, and ready. Additionally, our
nuclear power may delay hostile action long enough for negotiations
to relieve tensions. Kim Jong-un must understand that if he attacks,
we will respond with a strong resolve, and that we have an assured
second-strike capability. What is more, our readiness influences China and
Russia, both nuclear-capable countries with wide ties and significant
sway. The credibility of our nuclear forces and our resolve must
remain clear to these great powers as they exert pressure on rogue
leaders. And we must remember that decisions we make now affect the
believability of our deterrence later, as we analyze an uncertain future based
on what we know today and our best estimate of coming trends. As our
nuclear forces reach the end of their lives, we must take action to keep our
capability strong and flexible. President Barack Obama has taken a
position consistent with those of many prior administrations. The
responsible action now is for us to reaffirm our embrace of a strong nuclear
deterrent, thus reducing the chances of proliferation and miscalculation. We
must not flinch from this critical test of national character. Our planned 12
ballistic-missile submarines will provide strategic nuclear deterrence into the
2080s. As we debate the merits of various programs over coming
years, we must not lose sight of the fact that they guarantee our very
existence, deterring potential enemies from using weapons with
unimaginable consequences.

REMs K2 Heg
Rare earth dependence can collapse US military
offensives in months fastest internal link to heg
Barry, Editor At Global Asset Strategist, 10
[Jennifer, 10/22/10, Financial Sense, China's Rare Earth Revenge,
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jennifer-barry/china-rare-earthrevenge]
For decades, China has slowly increased their market share in rare earth
metals, but this year marks a quiet crisis in these elements. As James Dines
reported in a recent interview, the Chinese now produce 97% of rare earth
oxides and have cut back sharply on exports, slashing them 72% for the
second half of 2010. These quotas are causing price spikes from panic
buying. I decided to research why China would slash their rare earth exports.
One major factor in Chinas decision is surging domestic demand. The nation
needs to reserve these key metals for their own future. With more than 1.3
billion citizens and a rapidly expanding economy, the Chinese consume 60%
of world demand. While China is the dominant producer of REEs, the nation
only holds 36% of known global reserves according to energy analyst Marc
Humphries. The rate of mineral exploitation is unsustainable, and it makes
sense for Beijing to assure they retain enough REEs to carry out their plans
for development. As an anonymous Chinese expert put it, It's unwise to
drain the pond to catch all the fish." Just as China moved from a major
exporter of crude oil to one of the biggest importers, some pundits believe
that China will even have to import certain rare earths by 2015 for certain
high tech products like super magnets for wind turbines. To back up this
theory, China attempted to purchase Australian REE miner Lynas Corporation
last year. China is not just interested in hoarding a depleting store of rare
earths. According to the Peoples Daily, much of the governments concern is
environmental. The area around Baitou - where the majority of production
occurs - was polluted by toxic chemicals used to process this ore. Much of the
damage was caused by illegal, uncontrolled mining operations. Even worse,
the contamination happened while much of these valuable resources were
wasted due to the use of outdated technology. While many analysts doubt
that Beijing cares about ecological damage, I believe this is truly a motive for
Chinese leaders. Up to 5% of Chinas economic output is lost due to
environmental destruction each year, as well as 400,000 excess deaths. Over
the past decade, the nation has made great strides in improving the
environment. China increased its forest cover and lessened both air and
water pollution. Its also making huge investments in green energy like solar
and wind power to wean itself away from coal. Decades of Planning China did
not reach 97% of rare earth oxide production by accident. The nation has
always been a long term planner. In the 1960s, leaders realized the
significance of REE deposits. Deng Xiaoping stated, The Middle East has oil,
and China has rare earths. However, the country wasnt a major player in
the rare earth market until 1985. In that year, China significantly increased
production at their Bayan Obo mine. These elements could be mined very

cheaply as they are a by-product of iron ore production. In addition, the


elements are relatively easy to extract, with low radioactivity. At the same
time, electronics manufacturing was outsourced to Asia, and it made sense to
source raw materials like REEs locally as well. With lower costs for labor and
fewer regulations, China was able to outcompete other countries like
Australia easily. Foreign mines were shuttered due to unprofitability or
environmental concerns. By 1996, the Chinese had totally dominated the
market, and most of the technical expertise had been transferred to the East.
China funds continued research in REEs in order to develop new applications
and keep their lead in this field. Now that the Chinese control the rare earth
market, the government has decided to reorganize the entire industry.
Smuggling and illegal mining will no longer be tolerated. Ninety mining
companies will be consolidated into 20 by 2015 to improve efficiency. In Inner
Mongolia, the Baotou Steel Rare-Earth company will be the only legal miner,
and 9% of annual production will be saved in stockpiles. Chinese leaders are
also considering creating official state reserves. Chinas Revenge These
decisive moves from China have upset countries that manufacture items
containing REEs, most notably Japan. In August, Japan begged the Chinese to
ease restrictions on exports as surging prices are hurting corporations. The
Japanese argued that these cuts were harming Chinese companies that
depend on finished parts from Japan containing these elements. The Japanese
government was so concerned about the impact on its manufacturing base
that it sent 160 business leaders to China for economic talks. Despite these
entreaties, China was not very flexible, citing WTO rules that allow quotas for
environmental protection. In fact, Chinese leaders suggested that Japan
implore other countries to produce more rare earths rather than depend on
their output. The Japanese realized they had little bargaining power, so they
agreed to transfer technology on purifying REEs. In fact, China is in the
position to demand territorial concessions in exchange for access to these
metals. Im sure that the Chinese are enjoying turning the tables on the
Japanese, even if only economically. These two nations have been rivals for
centuries, with the first recorded battle occurring in 663 AD. Japan has
borrowed many aspects of Chinese culture from its writing system to
philosophy, but these contributions are rarely credited by the Japanese. Most
of the source of Chinese anger is directed at Japans aggressive military
history. Japan has repeatedly invaded and occupied Chinese territory, most
recently from 1931 to 1945. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were
massacred in Nanking, and other atrocities like medical experiments were
perpetrated on the public. This rage simmers below the surface today, as
massive anti-Japanese demonstrations occurred as late as 2005. While Japan
seems unwilling to make formal reparations or an apology for the occupation,
the nation has quietly been Chinas largest financial aid donor for years. To
cope with supply disruption, Japanese corporations are are reformulating
products so they no longer require rare earth elements to work. Hitachi has
developed a motor that uses an iron alloy instead of dysprosium, but the
prototype is not large enough yet for production. The Teijin Group has also
successfully produced a new magnet out of iron and nitrogen, replacing one

using REEs. However, I doubt that these elements can be replaced


everywhere in the supply chain, as they have unique qualities which
prompted their use in the first place. US Military Vulnerable Although the US
is not a major manufacturer of high tech consumer products containing REEs,
the military is dependent on them. As modern weapons from smart bombs to
tanks require these metals, the ability of America to wage war depends on a
steady supply of rare earths. The US was not always dependent on the
continued goodwill of foreign countries for critical materials. The National
Stockpile was established after World War II to assure that essential elements
would be available in case of an emergency. In the 1990s, the US Department
of Defense (DOD) decided that 99% of the stockpile was surplus and the
vast majority was sold. Although China has dominated the rare earth market
since the mid-1990s, the US government was unconcerned about Chinese
control of these elements for many years. Only in April 2009, did the DOD
and Congress finally place a freeze on the sale of some materials, and decide
to conserve a minimum of a one year supply for others. While the US House
of Representatives has passed a bill to promote locating and exploiting rare
earth resources, I wonder if this action is too little too late. Not only are these
metals necessary for weapons, but for green technology that attempts to
lessen dependence on foreign oil, supplied mostly by countries unfriendly to
the US. While the Mountain Pass mine in California was allowed to reopen,
and Congress may subsidize more rare earth resource development, it takes
7 to 15 years to move from a promising deposit to a producing ore body. With
inadequate domestic stockpiles, China could shut down Americas military
offensives in a matter of months.

Prefer our internal link increased wind and solar


development specifically trades off with effective military
technology alternative metals will ruin US military
primacy
Hurst, Research Analyst in the Foreign Military Studies
Office at Fort Leavenworth, 10

[Cindy A. Hurst, NDU, "China's Ace in the Hole: Rare Earth Elements," Joint
Force Quarterly Issue 59, October 2010 www.ndu.edu/press/chinas-ace-in-thehole.html]
Of course, not all REEs are created equal. Some experts predict that by 2015
there will be a shortage of neodymium, terbium, and dysprosium, while
supplies of europium, erbium, and yttrium could become tight.9 The
neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) permanent magnets are so strong that they
are ideal for the miniaturization of a variety of technologies, including
possible nanotechnologies. Many solid state lasers use neodymium due to its
optimal selection of absorption and emitting wavelengths. Consumption of
neodymium is expected to increase significantly as more wind turbines come
online. Wind may be "free," but some of the newer generation wind turbines
use up to two tons of these magnets. Terbium and dysprosium can be
additives to enhance the coercivity in NdFeB magnets.10 Yttrium is used,
along with neodymium, in lasers. Europium is the most reactive of the REEs.

Along with its current use in phosphors for fluorescent lamps and
television/computer screens, it is being studied for possible use in nuclear
reactors.11 Erbium is used as an amplifier for fiber optic data transmission. It
has also been finding uses in nuclear applications and metallurgy. For
example, adding erbium to vanadium, a metal used in nuclear applications
and high-speed tools, lowers the hardness and improves the workability of
the metal. Samarium is another REE used in military applications. Samarium
is combined with cobalt to create a permanent magnet with the highest
resistance to demagnetization of any material known. Because of its ability to
withstand higher temperatures without losing its magnetism, it is essential in
both aerospace and military applications. Precision-guided munitions use
samarium-cobalt (SmCo) permanent magnet motors to direct the flight
control surfaces (fins). SmCo can also be used as part of stealth technology in
helicopters to create white noise to cancel or hide the sound of the rotor
blades. These magnets are used in defense radar systems as well as in
several types of electronic countermeasure equipment, such as the Tail
Warning Function.12 According to the U.S. Geological Survey, substitutes are
available for many rare earth applications, but they are generally less
effective. 13 Steven Duclos, chief scientist with General Electric Global
Research asserts, "There's no question that rare earths do have some
properties that are fairly unique, but for many applications these properties
are not so unique that you cannot find similar properties in other materials.
[REEs] are just better, from either a weight, strength, or optical property and
that's why people have moved to them." Duclos went on to explain, "It
always comes down to a tradeoff. You can build a motor that does not have
rare earth permanent magnets in it. It will be bigger and heavier for a given
amount of power or torque that you want."14 Some scientists argue that in
many cases, while there may be substitutes, the tradeoff would diminish
military superiority. According to George Hadjipanayis, a Richard B. Murray
Chair Professor of Physics at the University of Delaware, the alnico and ferrite
magnets, the first two permanent magnets ever produced, do not have rare
earth in them and their performance is much lower. Hadjipanayis is currently
working with a group of researchers to develop a "next generation magnet"
that will be stronger than either the NdFeB or SmCo magnets. The project is
being conducted using a three-tiered approach:15 The University of Nebraska
is striving to develop a permanent magnet that does not require rare earth.
The U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory in Iowa is pursuing options
that might use new materials based on combinations of rare earths, transition
metals, and possibly other elements that have not been used with magnets
before. The University of Delaware is striving to create a new magnetic
material that is based on an idea of "nano-composite" magnets. It is a
complex process that could slash the use of neodymium or samarium in
magnets by 30 or 40 percent.16 Rare earth permanent magnets constitute
the widest use of REEs. In the 1960s, the United States was number one in
the research and development of magnets. The Nation enjoyed many
technological breakthroughs until about the early 1980s. Since the discovery
of the NdFeB magnet in 1983, research and development in the United States
has been relatively flat.17

China DA

1NC Shell
Rare earth supply and demand is stable now but supply is
limited the plan causes supply shortages and
bottlenecks
Snyder, Bloomberg writer, 12

[Jim, 1/5/12, Bloomberg News, Five Rare Earths Crucial for Clean Energy
Seen In Short Supply, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/five-rareearths-crucial-for-clean-energy-seen-in-short-supply.html]
Falling Prices While prices of rare earths fell in the second half of 2011, they
remain volatile, leading some companies to search for ways to consider
reducing reliance on the minerals, the Energy Department said. The
department is also researching how to use rare-earths more efficiently,
including through recycling, and to increase production in the U.S. The
departments Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy has given about
$31.6 million to 14 research projects to study ways to reduce or eliminate use
of rare-earth elements. In Congress, at least a dozen bills have been
introduced supporting development of a domestic rare-earth industry,
including through U.S. loan guarantees, according to the Energy Department
report. None of the measures has passed. The biggest challenge is a
permitting system that has historically taken multiple years to go from
exploration to production, Daniel McGroarty, president of Lonoke, Arkansasbased U.S. Rare Earths Inc. (UREE), said in an interview. The company has
claims in Colorado, Montana and Idaho, he said. Worldwide Demand The five
minerals most at risk of supply disruptions are used to make wind turbines,
solar panels, electric car batteries and energy-efficient lights, according to
the report. A 2007 law requiring the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs
may increase demand for terbium, europium and yttrium, used in compact
fluorescent bulbs that comply with higher efficiency standards, according to
the report. While these materials are generally used in low volumes relative
to other resources, the anticipated deployment of clean-energy technologies
could substantially increase worldwide demand, the report said. Smaller
mining companies have difficulty raising the $100 million to $1 billion it takes
to open a rare-earth ore mine, while global mining companies are often not
interested because of the relatively small size of the $3 billion market and its
unpredictability, the report said. The report also recommends greater
emphasis on education and job training. Strengthening the U.S. position
across the supply chain requires a capable workforce, the report said.

Sudden energy investment skyrockets rare earth prices


that devastates manufacturers and deters innovation
across all industries that flips the aff
Epstein, writer for the Chicago Policy Review, 12

[Nicholas, 7/12/12, Medium Rare: Whats Cooking in the Rare Earth Element
Market?. http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2012/07/12/medium-rare-whatscooking-in-the-rare-earth-element-market/]
REE supplies are vulnerable for several reasons. Most importantly, one
nation, China, controls 98 percent of the worlds REE production. Further,
REEs are found together in geological formations. As a result, REEs are co-

mined, so production is highly concentrated geographically. Lastly, Rare Earth


extraction has negative environmental impacts and Chinas poor labor
standards add social concerns to the supply market.
The authors identify circumstances under which REEs may experience
revolutionary demand, that is, when new sudden technological innovations
sharply increase the demand for REEs. They explain that revolutionary
demand changes can lead to supply and price instability in the materials
market. This effect is harmful to manufacturers, who depend on a consistent
supply-chain, and deters additional innovation.

Chinese resource monopoly uniquely makes war more


likely and more dangerous export cutoffs destroy
military effectiveness and collapse hard power
Kim, writer for The Catalyst, 14

[William Kim, 2/23/14, The Catalyst, Colorado College, Control of rare earth
elements crucial to American stability,
http://catalystnewspaper.com/2014/02/23/control-of-rare-earth-elementscrucial-to-american-stability/]
An episode of House of Cards deals with a crisis between China and the
United States as a result of China cutting off US access to Samarium,
a rare earth element. Unfortunately, this situation is not very far
fetched. Rare earth elements are extremely important to the United
States. They have vital applications in electronics, as they are used in
the production of hard disks, smart phones, TV screens, and touch screens.
Rare earth elements have also allowed electronics like headphones to
become smaller, and they are critical to the energy sector. They are used in
oil refineries, hybrid cars, wind turbines, nuclear control rods,
energy efficient light bulbs, and solar panels. Other civilian applications
include water treatment, medical imaging, and super alloys. Rare earth
elements are even more important to the military. As a result of the
Pentagons network-centric warfare doctrine, the US military is
highly computerized, so all of the IT applications of rare earth elements
apply to the military. Thus, these elements are found in tanks, warships,
fighter jets, smart munitions, missile defense systems, satellites,
and communication gear. Fighting a war without rare earth elements
would be like fighting without fuel or ammunition . Its no surprise that a
Congressional finding called rare earth elements critical to national
security. Currently, China controls 97 percent of the worlds
production of rare earth elements. This gives China a massive upper
hand in international disputes. In response to a maritime dispute
with Japan, China cut off rare earth exports to Japanese customers
and cut global export quotas, claiming that they were trying to fight
pollution. If China were to cut off rare earth exports to the United
States in response to a trade war, military conflict, or a cold war,
they would bring the United States to its knees economically and
militarily. Given the fact that tensions still remain high in the South
China Sea and the Strait of Taiwan, this is a dangerous situation for the

US. It is critical that the United States finds alternate sources of rare earth
elements. These sources do exist. Although China controls the vast majority
of the worlds current production, it only has 37 percent of the worlds
reserves. Despite the name, rare earth elements are actually relatively
abundant. There are many rare earth element mines outside of China that
were shut down after China undercut world prices in the 1990s. Surprisingly,
the US was the largest producer in the 1980s. Mines in Australia are
appearing online, and mines in the US, Brazil, Vietnam, Greenland and
Canada could be online by 2015. The United States government should
subsidize domestic rare earth production and encouragwe other countries to
do the same in order to end Chinas monopoly. Another source of rare earth
elements is the piles of dirt and rock that were discarded during the gold
rush. These mine tailings were once thought to be worthless, but could in fact
be a gold mine of rare earth elements. Recycling rare earth elements is also
an option. Japan has already built recycling plants that extract these
elements from old hybrid car batteries and electronics. This would lead to
additional environmental benefit, since rare earth mining and refining creates
toxic waste and emits carbon dioxide. In the long term, it may be possible to
remove rare earth elements from the equation altogether. Companies and
universities are trying to develop substitute materials with nanotechnology,
as well as devices that do not need rare earth elements. However, these
technologies remain elusive after years of research. As a short-term plan, the
United States should create a prudent reserve of rare earth
elements to add to the other stockpiles of strategically important
resources like medicine and oil. Theres even a National Raisin Reserve!
Since rare earth elements are vital to the American economy and military,
there is no reason why the government should not have a national
emergency stockpile of them. Many ask why the Allies won the Second
World War. One of the reasons was that the Allies had far more
natural resources, especially oil. The United States produced 60 percent
of the worlds oil, and the remainder was largely produced by other Allied
nations. Britain controlled the oil-rich Middle East, while the Soviet Union had
significant oil reserves in the Caucuses. In contrast, the Germans had a few
oil wells in Romania, but they had no efficient way of processing or
transporting this oil (which was made harder by Allied bombing). The
Japanese captured the oil rich Dutch East Indies early in the war, but
American submarines made transportation difficult. Ultimately, Axis warships,
planes, and tanks simply ran out of gas. Training had to be cut back, resulting
in unskilled pilots and tank crews. Axis fleets and armies had to
disengage or avoid fights altogether due to a lack of fuel. While a
major great power war is far less likely now than it was in the 1900s, the
United States faces a similar problem. Rare earth elements are about as
important as oil to our military and economy. In the unlikely but possible
event of war with China (or even a cold war for that matter), America
would find itself in a similar predicament in regard to rare earth
elements that Germany and Japan faced with regard to oil. The United
States cannot let such a critical resource remain in the hands of a single

foreign nation, particularly a nation that could be a major competitor for


world power.

China war escalates to nuclear extinction


Wittner, professor of history emeritus at SUNY Albany, 11

[Lawrence, 11-30-2011, Is Nuclear War with China Possible,


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-warchina_b_1116556.html, DOI 7/12014]
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will
be used. After all, for centuries international conflicts have led to
wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current
deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us
with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension
between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by
China's growing economic and military strength, the U.S.
government recently challenged China's claims in the South China
Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S.
military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a
Pacific power." But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And
yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States
and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S.
government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the
Korean War and, later, during their conflict over the future of China's offshore
islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President
Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear
weapons would "be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything
else." Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons then. Now that it
does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But
the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials
during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals,
should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear
saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons
prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there
haven't been very many -- at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999,
between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should
convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict
almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened
that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its
arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons
toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear
missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don't nuclear
weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn't
feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to
respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe
by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet
Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear
deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing "Star Wars"
and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly
expensive -- and probably unworkable -- military defense systems needed if

other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of
course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons
safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear
arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated
that the U.S. government possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads,
while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly 300 .
Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the
United States. Surely the United States would "win" any nuclear war
with China. But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with
these Chinese nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least
10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving
many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The
Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations
would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also,
radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot
out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating
chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the extent of
this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is
currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is
expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that
can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to
spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear
weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade.

2NC China Cut-off


China will respond by cutting off rare earth supply that
causes US-China conflict
Cohen, writer for NewScientist, 7
[David, 5/23/7, New Scientist, Earth's natural wealth: an audit,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426051.200-earthsnatural-wealth-an-audit.html]
These may sound like drastic solutions, but as Graedel points out in a paper
published last year (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol
103, p 1209), "Virgin stocks of several metals appear inadequate to sustain
the modern 'developed world' quality of life for all of Earth's people under
contemporary technology." And when resources run short, conflict is often
not far behind. It is widely acknowledged that one of the key motives for civil
war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1998 and 2002 was the
riches to be had from the country's mineral resources, including tantalum
mines - the biggest in Africa. The war coincided with a surge in the price of
the metal caused by the increasing popularity of mobile phones (New
Scientist, 7 April 2001, p 46).
Similar tensions over supplies of other rare metals are not hard to imagine.
The Chinese government is supplementing its natural deposits of rare metals
by investing in mineral mines in Africa and buying up high-tech scrap to
extract metals that are key to its developing industries. The US now imports
over 90 per cent of its so-called "rare earth" metals from China, according to
the US Geological Survey. If China decided to cut off the supply, that would
create a big risk of conflict, says Reller.

China will hold exports hostage that turns clean tech


development
Schuessler, writer for Aljazeera America, 14

[Ryan, 1/30/14, Aljazeera America, Missouri mine shines spotlight on global


battle for rare-earth metals,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/30/us-counts-onpearidgerareearthsmine.html, accessed 7/19/14, TYBG]
Chinas export restrictions and supply-chain acquisition have taken U.S.based operations to that country to receive a reliable source of rare earths
needed for modern manufacturing. It has been a process that has played out
over the last 25 years or so. In 1992, the then-leader of the Communist Party
of China, Deng Xiaoping, said: The Middle East has oil and China has rare
earth. The country has since lived up to that promise.
Thirty years ago, U.S. production of rare earths was nearly three times that of
China, just under 30,000 tons. However, U.S. production shut down in the
early 21st century after being outdone by Chinese production, which had
grown to approximately 70,000 tons and has continued to increase ever
since.
The most notable single example of China taking on the U.S. was in 1995,
when Chinese companies acquired Magnequench, a GM subsidiary built in

conjunction with the Department of Defense that developed high-tech


magnets using the rare earth neodymium. By 2002, Magnequenchs facilities
had been duplicated in China, and all U.S. operations were shut down.
Chinas actions have hardly gone unnoticed. Last year, the Bangalore, India
based National Institute of Advanced Studies released an independent report
describing Chinese dominance of the rare-earths industry. The report
suggested that Chinas upper hand, including the acquisition of
Magnequench, was the result of a well-thought out carefully crafted dynamic
long term strategy.
These days Chinas rare-earth production is almost equal to global rare earth
consumption, around 135,000 tons. That gives China power, especially as the
world economy moves ever more high tech. If the advanced countries such
as U.S.A. and some of the European countries want to build an economy
which moves towards the Green Energy systems, then China being a major
supplier of (rare earths) could hold these countries ransom, said Lalitha
Sundaresan, one of the authors of the study, in an email from India.
Chinas leverage also exists when it comes to military technology based on
rare earths, used in radar systems, missiles and satellites, to name a few
things. That gives China powerful influence in global diplomacy. In September
2010, reports emerged alleging that China had suspended exports of rare
earths to Japan over an incident surrounding disputed islands in the South
China Sea. Chinese officials continue to deny this claim, but rare-earth
consumers nonetheless have been scrambling to find an alternative supply
ever since.

Impact Trade War


Chinese REM dominance causes a trade war with the US
export quotas create conflict and exploitable military
vulnerabilities.
Robison & Ratnam 10 [Pentagon Loses Control of Bombs to China
Metal Monopoly By Peter Robison and Gopal Ratnam - Sep 29, 2010 3:49 PM
PT. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/pentagon-losing-control-ofafghanistan-bombs-to-china-s-neodymium-monopoly.html]
The Pentagon has been incredibly negligent, said Peter Leitner, who was a
senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department from 1986 to 2007.
There are plenty of early warning signs that China will use its leverage over
these materials as a weapon. China may already be flexing its muscles amid
a diplomatic spat with its East Asian neighbor Japan. China last week
imposed a de facto ban on exports to Japan of the metals used in
liquid crystal displays and laptop computers, Japanese Economy
Minister Banri Kaieda said Sept. 28. That followed Japans detention of a
Chinese fishing boat captain whose ship collided with two Japanese Coast
Guard vessels. Japan later released the man. No such ban exists, Chinas
Ministry of Commerce spokesman Chen Rongkai said. New Factor What it
does, clearly, is bring a new factor into the consideration of supply of critical
materials, said Dudley Kingsnorth, director of Industrial Minerals Co. of
Australia, a forecaster in Perth. The U.S. Congresss investigative arm,
the Government Accountability Office, in April warned of
vulnerabilities for the military because of the lack of domestic rare-earth
supplies. The House of Representatives Armed Services Committee will hold a
hearing in October, the same month a Pentagon report on how to secure
future supplies of the metals is due. The department has long recognized
that rare-earth elements are important raw material inputs for many defense
systems and that many companies in our base have expressed concern
regarding the future availability of the refined products of these elements,
Brett Lambert, director of the Pentagons Office of Industrial Policy, said.
While two rare-earth projects are scheduled to ramp up production by the end
of 2012 -- one owned by Molycorp Inc. in California and another by Lynas
Corp. in Australia -- the GAO says it may take 15 years to rebuild a U.S.
manufacturing supply chain. China makes virtually all the metals refined from
rare earths, the agency says. The elements are also needed for hybridelectric cars and wind turbines, one reason supply may fall short of demand
in 2014 even with the new mines, according to Kingsnorth of Imcoa. Doggy
Day Care Just how far U.S. manufacturing has waned is apparent at a factory
in Valparaiso, Indiana, where dogs skitter across a bare concrete shop floor,
their nails clicking. This brick plant on Elm Street once made 80 percent of
the rare-earth magnets in laser-guided U.S. smart bombs, according to U.S.
Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana. In 2003, the plants owner
shifted work to China, costing 230 jobs. Now the plant houses Cocos Canine
Cabana, a doggy day care the current tenants started to supplement sagging

income from their machine shop. On most days dogs outnumber the 15
metalworkers, said Kathy DeFries, co-owner of Excel Machine Technologies
Inc. When things got slow for manufacturing, we had this big empty shop
floor, said DeFries, nuzzling a floppy-eared puppy. Its a great stress
reliever. Expensive to Mine The rare earths are chemically similar elements,
with names such as yttrium and dysprosium. China has the largest share of
worldwide reserves, about 36 percent, and the U.S. is second, with 13
percent, the U.S. Geological Survey says. While the elements arent rare,
theyre less frequently found in profitable concentrations, expensive for
Western producers to extract and often laced with radioactive elements.
China produced 120,000 tons, or 97 percent, of the worlds 124,000-ton
supply last year, according to the GAO. Half of that came from Baotou, said
Kingsnorth. The raw elements have many applications. Neodymium is used
by Chinese companies including magnet makers, who sell to U.S. suppliers of
defense contractors. Export Quotas Export quotas and taxes for overseas
buyers that the GAO says can reach 25 percent are pushing up prices of
elements even in relatively large supply. For example, the cost of a kilogram
of samarium powder, needed for the navigation system of General Dynamics
M1A2 Abrams tank, jumped to $34 in early September, from $4.50 in June,
according to U.K. researcher Metal Pages Ltd. The U.S. and the European
Union consider Chinese restrictions on a range of raw goods part of
a strategy to draw in higher-paying manufacturing jobs by making
them cheaper to buy inside China. The export taxes violate World
Trade Organization rules because China pledged to limit them to 84
product categories when it joined the trade group in 2001, said
Terence Stewart, managing partner of Washington law firm Stewart &
Stewart. In 2010, China had taxes on 329, he said. The U.S. and the EU
filed a WTO complaint over raw materials including bauxite and coke
last year. Chinas commerce minister, Chen Deming, said Aug. 28 that the
policies comply with WTO rules. Some manufacturers in China are lobbying
the ministry to back off the latest quotas because a dispute will disrupt the
market, said Constantine Karayannopoulos, chief executive officer of Torontobased Neo Material Technologies Inc., which has rare-earth production
facilities in China. Risk of Trade War It was very sudden and didnt give
the industry any time to adjust, he said. This quota action could risk a
trade war. For Western companies, Chinas policies are creating the real
unobtanium, the fictional mineral fought over in James Camerons 2009 film
Avatar. Its taking as long as 10 weeks to get neodymium magnets, double
the previous wait time, said Joe Schrantz, group supply chain manager at
Moog Inc. in East Aurora, New York. He said the company buys hundreds
of thousands of magnets a year to make motors for cars, trucks and
weapons including Raytheons AMRAAM -- or Advanced Medium-Range
Air-to-Air Missile -- and Boeings Joint Direct Attack Munition, a tail fin
kit for making precision-guided smart bombs out of ordinary
weapons.

Impact - US-China War


Supply bottlenecks lead to China war
Anthony, lead editor at Ziff Davis, Inc., 11

[Sebastian, December 30, 2011, Owner at SA Holdings, Past Columnist at


Tecca, Editor at Aol (Weblogs, Inc), degree from University of Essex, Rare
earth crisis: Innovate, or be crushed by China, Extreme Tech,
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/111029-rare-earth-crisis-innovate-orbe-crushed-by-china/2]
The doomsday event that everyone is praying will never come to
pass, but which every Western nation is currently planning for, is the
eventual cut-off of Chinese rare earth exports. Last year, 97% of the
worlds rare earth metals were produced in China but over the last few
years, the Chinese government has been shutting down mines,
ostensibly to save what resources it has, and also reducing the amount of
rare earth that can be exported. Last year, China produced some 130,000
tons of rare earths, but export restrictions meant that only 35,000 tons were
sent to other countries. As a result, demand outside China now outstrips
supply by some 40,000 tons per year, and as expected many
countries are now stockpiling the reserves that they have. Almost every
Western country is now digging around in their backyard for rare
earth-rich mud and sand, but itll probably be too little too late
and anyway, due to geochemistry, theres no guarantee that explorers and
assayers will find what theyre looking for. The price of rare earths are already
going up, and so are the non-Chinese-made gadgets and gizmos that use
them. Exacerbating the issue yet further, as technology grows more
advanced, our reliance on the strange and magical properties of rare
earths increases and China, with the worlds largest workforce and a fire
hose of rare earths, is perfectly poised to become the only real producer of
solar power photovoltaic cells, computer chips, and more. In short, China has
the world by the short hairs, and when combined with a hotting-up
cyber front, its not hard to see how this situation might devolve into
World War III. The alternate, ecological point of view, is that were simply
living beyond the planets means. Either way, strategic and logistic planning
to make the most of scarce metals and minerals is now one of the most
important tasks that face governments and corporations. Even if large rare
earth deposits are found soon, or we start recycling our gadgets in a big way,
the only real solution is to somehow lessen our reliance on a finite resource.
Just like oil and energy, this will probably require drastic technological leaps.
Instead of reducing the amount of tantalum used in capacitors, or indium in
LCD displays, we will probably have to discover completely different ways of
storing energy or displaying images. My moneys on graphene.

Neodymium shortages will cause a conflict between the


US and China shapes relations and geopolitical
landscape of Asia
Leithead, BBC News reporter, 11

[Alastair, July 12, 2011, BBC, Rare Earth Elements May Affect Future Global
Relations, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14114107, KB]
Wars have been fought over oil and water. But are the future global
tensions going to be over access to Scandium, Neodymium or
Dysprosium? Or could conflicts be fought over any other of the 17 rare
earth elements, which, week by week, are becoming more and more
important in developing the latest high-tech products? Tucked onto the
periodic table of the elements, in a little section once ignored by chemistry
teachers, rare earths are now everywhere. They are in your iPod or tablet
computer, are vital for the red colour in your TV screen whatever make you
have and allow your headphones to be small enough to fit into your ears.
Continue reading the main story Start Quote As China's exports are
being restricted, we are looking at outright shortages of rare earths,
probably this year and next Jim Sims Molycorp representative They are in
hybrid cars - both in the batteries and the fuel - and in new generation wind
turbines, missile defence systems, solar panels and even F-16 fighter jets. At
the moment China provides 97% of the world's rare earth elements,
which is making America nervous from both an economic and a security
perspective. Their price has gone up 1000% in just a year, which is making
mining them in the US worthwhile once again. 'Rare earth shortages' A deep
hole in the ground high up in the Mojave Desert is America's only rare earths
mine, and the race is on to dig out the supply to match the demand as only a
few places in the world have enough reserves to make mining them practical.
"The world - America, Britain, everyone - relies on what China exports to
meet their needs," says Jim Sims from Molycorp, the company running
California's Mountain Pass mine. "As China's exports are being restricted, we
are looking at outright shortages of rare earths, probably this year and next,"
he adds. America's only rare earths mine is located in the Mojave Desert in
the US south-west So the huge diggers and trucks moving vast volumes of
rocks around, the daily explosive charges blasting the mountainside apart,
are harvesting one of the world's biggest deposits. The mine closed down 10
years ago when a flood of cheap Chinese rare earth elements made profits
hard to maintain. Until just a few weeks ago, Molycorp was asking for the US
government's help to cover costs of digging these elements out, separating
them off and moulding them into metal alloys. But the price has gone up so
rapidly, rare earths is suddenly looking like a good business. Last year China's
exports of rare earth elements to Japan were interrupted during a political
row over territorial waters, which sent shudders around the world. "We
should be worried when any country completely dominates any raw
material supplies," says Christine Parthemore, from the Center for New
American Security in Washington DC. "I don't think China is uniquely at fault
in this situation, but they are using the political leverage that's derived

from cornering the market they have as any country would. "I'm sure America
would do the same," he adds. Increasing demand The creation of permanent
magnets, a key component in so many green technologies, is one of the key
uses of rare earths. They make the new generation of wind turbines more
efficient and reliable. But there are such an increasing variety of uses for
these elements, down to glass polishing, that there aren't enough of the raw
materials to go around. The speed of China's growth means the country is
consuming more of its own rare earths, which has led to a drop in the amount
available for export. "It is a security issue strictly in the sense that these
minerals are used in critical military components for their properties,
which we don't currently have substitutes for," says Christine Parthemore. "If
the prices go way up or there are actual supply shortages, it can drive
prices up over the long term on military procurement - or it can mean
there are parts that we can't manufacture here in the United States
anymore." It increases the need for an industry to extract the ore and process
the materials. "The elements are all mixed together in the ore we mine," Jim
Sims says. "We turn them into a liquid, and let these elements settle out into
oxides which are like powders," he adds. Inside a warehouse at the mine are
dozens of huge white sacks, each weighing a metric tonne and each worth
$200,000 (125,700). "Those powders then get turned into metals as
magnets or used in their oxide forms for a variety of uses in a variety of
different substances," Mr Sims says. As new uses are found for materials like
rare earth elements, there will be more competition, and access to
them may change the shape of global politics.

AT: China Monopoly Collapse


No China monopoly collapse refinement still has to
happen in China
Lifton, writer for Investor Intel, 14
[Jack, 1/12/14, Investor Intel, Jack Lifton refutes WSJ article: How the Great
Rare-Earth Metals Crisis Vanished, http://investorintel.com/rare-earthintel/jack-lifton-refutes-wsj-article-great-rare-earth-metals-crisis-vanished/,
accessed 7/19/14, TYBG]
The WSJ article published on January 8, 2014 How the Great Rare-Earth
Metals Crisis Vanished declares that the rare earth crisis is over, and as
support refers to the conclusions of a leaked Pentagon report. It glibly
declares, analyses, and dismisses, as a failure, a Chinese plot to maintain
control of the production and pricing of the rare earths as having been
defeated by the forces of the market and capitalism. But the real crisis is that
western end-users of rare earth enabled components have proved that if you
dont capitalize the security of supply then when the market turns in your
favor you are unprepared to take advantage of it. It is in the naked greed of
the stock market where the real rare earth crisis was invented, fomented,
sucked dry and forgotten. The stock market flies no national flag and its
players care little for apple pie or mom. Notwithstanding what this author
states there is today no nation other than China that has in place a total
domestic rare earth supply chain. Thus even if you do produce rare earths
outside of China you must send them to China if you want to first refine
mining concentrates and then to fabricate rare earth metals and alloys for
use, for example, as magnets. In particular none whatsoever today of the
critical heavy rare earths are produced outside of China.

Uniqueness

Neodymium
Neodymium supplies for wind energy are limited but
demand will continue to increase
Cho, analyst and reporter for Phys.org, 12
[Renee, September 20, 2012, Phys.org, Rare earth metals: Will we have
enough?", phys.org/news/2012-09-rare-earth-metals.html]
"To provide most of our power through renewables would take
hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are
mining today," said Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of
Industrial Ecology and professor of geology and geophysics at the Yale School
of Forestry & Environmental Studies. There is no firm definition of rare earth
metals, but the term generally refers to metals used in small quantities. Rare
earth metals include: rare earth elements17 elements in the periodic table,
the 15 lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium; six platinum group elements;
and other byproduct metals that occur in copper, gold, uranium, phosphates,
iron or zinc ores. While many rare earth metals are actually quite common,
they are seldom found in sufficient amounts to be extracted
economically. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report,
world demand for rare earth metals is estimated to be 136,000 tons
per year, and projected to rise to at least 185,000 tons annually by 2015.
With continued global growth of the middle class, especially in China, India
and Africa, demand will continue to grow. High-tech products and
renewable energy technology cannot function without rare earth
metals. Neodymium, terbium and dysprosium are essential ingredients
in the magnets of wind turbines and computer hard drives; a number of
rare earth metals are used in nickel-metal-hydride rechargeable batteries that
power electric vehicles and many other products; yttrium is necessary for
color TVs, fuel cells and fluorescent lamps; europium is a component of
compact fluorescent bulbs and TV and iPhone screens; cerium and lanthanum
are used in catalytic converters; platinum group metals are needed as
catalysts in fuel cell technology; and other rare earth metals are essential for
solar cells, cell phones, computer chips, medical imaging, jet engines,
defense technology, and much more. Ads by Google Donate Car to Make-AWish - Donate Your Car to Help NC Kids Free Towing & Maximum Tax
Deduction - WheelsForWishes.org/Make-A-Wish Wind power has grown around
7 percent a year, increasing by a factor of 10 over the last decade, noted
Peter Kelemen, Arthur D. Storke Memorial Professor of Geochemistry at the
Earth Institute's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Every megawatt of
electricity needs 200 kilograms of neodymiumor 20 percent of one
ton," he said. "So if every big wind turbine produces one megawatt,
five turbines will require one ton of neodymium. If wind is going to
play a major part in replacing fossil fuels, we will need to increase
our supply of neodymium." A recent MIT study projected that neodymium
demand could grow by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years;
demand for dysprosium, also needed for wind turbines, could increase by

2,600 percent. China currently supplies 97 percent of global rare earth


metal demand, and 100 percent of heavy rare earth metals such as
terbium and dysprosium, used in wind turbines. In 2005, it began
restricting exports to preserve resources and protect the environment,
causing prices to soar. Today, the United States is 100 percent
dependent on imports for rare earth metals. From the mid-1960s
through the 1980s, however, Molycorp's Mountain Pass mine in California was
the world's main source of rare earth metals. As the U.S. share of rare earth
metal production declined, China used government support, research and
development, training programs, cheap labor and low prices to develop its
supply chain, increasing its share of rare earth metal production from 27
percent in 1990 to 97 percent in 2011. In March, the U.S., Japan and the
European Union lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organization over
China's limits on rare earth exports. In response, China announced that it will
export 30,996 more metric tons of rare earth metals in 2012 than it did in
2011.

Dysprosium
Prices are lowless production and export quotas
Mining.com 2013
[Frik Els, 1/8/13, Mining.com, Chinas 2013 rare earth production, export
caps cant stop prices diving, http://www.mining.com/chinas-2013-rareearth-output-export-caps-cant-stop-prices-falling-87874/, 7/19/14, IC]
China is responsible for more than 95% of the global supply of rare earths
and over the weekend the country's Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR),
announced that the first production quota for rare earths this year will be set
at 46,900 tonnes.
Another quota will be announced later this year and the allotment is broadly
in line with recent output caps.
2012 output has not been disclosed, but the production quota totaled 93,800
tonnes in 2011,according to Bloomberg. The MLR also set production for
tungsten concentrate at 43,500 tonnes and antimony at 37,680 tonnes.
In December China pegged 6-month export quotas at 15,501 tonnes, also
broadly in line with the 2012 figure.
The export quotas which Japan and the US took all the way to the World
Trade Organization dispute resolution body appears to have become a
meaningless exercise.
China only exported some 13,000 tonnes of rare earths through authorized
channels during the whole of last year, a mere 40% of the allowed export.
A crackdown on illegal mining, consolidation of the industry under a few large
producers, mothballing mines China's number one producer recently
decided to extend its production halt to three months and the quotas have
not helped to put a floor under REE prices which have continued to fall from
2011's stratospheric levels.
The value of many of the 17 elements used in a variety of industries including
green technology, defence systems and consumer electronics are down more
than 80%.
While mid-2012 prices looked as if it will begin to stabilize, values continue to
soften.
Abundant, less valuable REEs have experienced the sharpest reversals.
Lanthanum oxide used in ceramics and fuel catalysts for example rose
from a price of just $8.71/kg in 2008 to average $117/kg in the third quarter
of 2011. By the third quarter of 2012 it was down to $19.54/kg.
As of 7 January 2013 its fallen further to $11/kg. Inside China that same
kilogram costs $7.54.

This price behaviour can be seen across the board: cerium oxide, used to
polish TV screens and lenses, is trading at $12 from an all-time high of $118
in the September 2011 quarter. In 2008 the price for cerium oxide was $4.56.
Praseodymium, used as an alloy in aircraft engines and welder goggles, was
available from China in 2009 for $18/kg. After peaking in the second half of
2011 along with all the other rare earths it was still priced at $163/kg during
the first quarter of 2012. Monday's benchmark price was $85, down from
$105 last September.
The price of a kilogram of samarium oxide increased dramatically from a
mere $3.40/kg in 2009 to average $103/kg in 2011. Used in jet fighter
electrical systems among other applications, samarium actually increased in
value from the first to the second quarter of 2012, from $73/kg to $82/kg.
Now it has plummeted to $25/kg free-on-board while the domestic price in
China is only $7.70 for samarium.
Heavy, scarcer REEs have generally held up better, but some have
experienced price declines of more than 50%.
Neodymium oxides, used in windmills, continue to slump from $338/kg in
Q3 2011 to $105.31/kg in Q3 2012 to $80/kg today.
A hybrid vehicle ingredient, dysprosium, rocketed from a price of $118.49/kg
in 2008 to average $1,449/kg in 2011. It peaked at an astonishing $2,300 by
September of that year.
Dysprosium, also used in conjunction with vanadium and other elements in
making laser materials, has now given up more than $1,500 per kilogram and
now goes for $630/kg. Inside China it is worth only $385/kg.

Dysprosium prices are lowconsumers lack confidence in


the market
Top Mag 2013
[10/14/13, Top Mag, Dysprosium oxide prices on the decrease,
http://www.topmag.net/NEWS/20131014/67.html, 7/19/14, IC]
BEIJING (Asian Metal) 14 Oct 13 - Some suppliers lower dysprosium oxide
offers slightly to promote deals at present, but few of consumers plan to
place orders at current price levels.
A source from a separation plant whose production volume is 4tpm in South
China claimed that they received rare inquiries for dysprosium oxide in
October. They lower their quotation a bit to RMB2,000/kg (USD327/kg) now,
down by around RMB50/kg (USD8/kg) from that of last week.
The source disclosed that end users lack confidence in current market, so

they delay purchasing the material further.


A source from a smelter in South China confirmed that dysprosium oxide
market remains soft with the mainstream prices hovering at RMB1,9002,100/kg (USD310-343/kg) at present, down slightly from those of last
week. As they still have enough stocks in hand, they are not in a hurry to
rebuild stocks in the near term.

Dysprosium prices are down 12.2%


Metal Miner 2013
[1/8/13, Rare Earths Prices Still Dropping: Dysprosium Oxide Falls 12.2%
Over Week, http://agmetalminer.com/2013/01/08/rare-earths-prices-stilldropping-dysprosium-oxide-falls-12-2-over-week/, 7/19/14, IC]
This past week, dysprosium oxide dropped 12.2 percent on the weekly Rare
Earths MMI, making it the weeks biggest mover. Terbium oxide saw a 6.7
percent drop-off this week. The price of praseodymium oxide also decreased,
down 6.1 percent from the previous week.

Dysprosium demands and pricing low now


Zhejiang and Dongyang, Magnet manufacturers and administrators
of Asian coal and rare earth mining , 14
(3-8-14, Strong Magnet News, Rare Earth prices stable or volatile week,
http://www.strong-magnet.com/en/news/newsinfo.asp?id=76, accessed 7-1914, YLP)
Rare steady this week, a slight downward market as a whole , the market
demand seems to be rather dull , turnover is not lively enough ,
manufacturers , traders shipped positive attitude .
This week lanthanum, cerium products is not much change in the basic price ,
4N lanthanum oxide is currently quoted by traders Ganzhou , was 24,000
yuan / ton, Baotou manufacturers said lanthanum metal price is currently at
50,000 yuan / ton the following low. 3N5 ceria currently with votes 2.2-2.3
million / ton, nearly a week of inquiries scarce. Relatively light rare earth
lanthanum, cerium , europium oxide ionic rare earth oxide , terbium oxide
prices are low volatility, there is not enough momentum . Currently ,
according to Ganzhou businesses that europium oxide with tickets currently
about 4200 yuan / kg , lower prices even in 4100 yuan / kg , with no votes at
3,450 yuan / kg. Terbium oxide without a ticket around 2850 yuan / kg , with
votes in the 3200-3350 yuan / kg.
This week the price changes as well as praseodymium , neodymium ,
dysprosium, gadolinium products. Praseodymium neodymium metal prices

this week lowered its 5,000 -1.5 million / ton, praseodymium , neodymium
oxide prices fell also 10,000 yuan / ton , despite the current relatively high
prices of both have declined in February , compared with last year but or
slightly higher than , and from country to actively promote new energy
vehicles standpoint, praseodymium , neodymium metal although the latter
may have dropped , but the price declines will not be too big , nor too fast
fluctuations.
This week's transaction price of dysprosium oxide basically down to 180 yuan
/ ton or less , merchants offer flat or down in the range of about 50,000
yuan / ton , demand a lot of deserted , nearly a week Measure the volume of
small business procurement . Dysprosium iron and metal dysprosium have
different ranges of price decline .
Other oxides , such as erbium oxide , neodymium oxide , etc., about five
thousand dollars a smooth or changes / ton price , the latter temporarily
vendors have expressed positive expectations too high , most stable based.
According to Ganzhou manufacturers now reflect the needs of holmium
products rarely yield less . No significant market turnaround , short-term
demand for the release was not much room . Holmium oxide with ticket
prices currently at around 420,000 yuan / ton, the business purchases of
more than 1 ton.

Dysprosium prices low now


Rare Earth News 13
(Rare Earth News, 12-06-13, China Tungsten, Heavy rare earth dysprosium
oxide prices hit a four-month low, http://news.chinatungsten.com/en/rareearth-news/35758-ren-1314, accessed 7-19-14, YLP)
Due to the rare earth reserve, hitting hot markets such concern is not up to
the expected delay, the severity of the rare earth oxide, praseodymium ,
neodymium , dysprosium oxide prices gradually lower , data showed that the
average price of dysprosium oxide is currently about 175 yuan / ton,
compared with the high point in August has fell 27.8 percent , a record low in
four months , analysts said the current transaction deserted , rare earth
prices still further downward trend .
Separation of rare earth enterprises have ceased production or help to
protect the price.
Minmetals Rare Earth the 5th evening announcement shows that its
subsidiaries have completed mandatory production plan in 2013 , recently
stopped production . It is understood that the downstream market is quiet
and private crack down on rare earth mine, back in September and October,
most of Ganzhou Rare Earth separation plant and other places have been cut,
analysts said Minmetals other formal enterprises stop production of rare
earth production is a normal phenomenon, rare earth prices have no direct
impact on the end .
Another rare earth analyst on condition of anonymity said, "because it is late,
many rare earth companies to return the funds to clear inventory , prices
have continued to fall still possible , but limited downstream demand ,

volume or difficult to improve , the decline should not be too great . "
To delay purchasing and storage, short-term market untold.
Analysts said the short-term rare earth -related companies are still expected
to benefit from the national reserve, purchasing and storage once opened,
should also have short-term market broke out, but the state purchasing and
storage is turned on , it is still not sure, great wisdom news agency
associations and business people also were not to receive messages.
Analysts believe that the medium and long term, the relevant listed company
is expected to continue to benefit from the country 's rare earth industry
consolidation. It is understood by the Ministry led Rare large group program
has been submitted to the State , once the program is approved rare large
group formation is expected to officially start after the Deputy Minister of
Industry and Su Bo also said publicly that the formation of rare large group
program is expected before the end of baked , in order to better improve
industry concentration, production quotas , mandatory plan , the new mining
permits and other policies in general will be inclined to a large group in the
future. But the big news is not yet definite group integration.

REMs
Demand for rare earth elements are increasing but
supply issues result in global price shocks
IHS, global information company, 13
[Information Handling Service, June 3, 2013, Pricing Instability, Growing
Demand and Supply Fears Drive Rare Earth Industry as China Dominates
Market, Says IHS Study, http://press.ihs.com/press-release/country-industryforecasting-media/pricing-instability-growing-demand-and-supply-fears, KB]
According to a new IHS Chemical (NYSE: IHS) global market research
report, a growing global dependence upon a multitude of diverse
technologiesincluding computers, smart phones, TVs, lighting systems,
hybrid automobiles, life-saving medical technologies, offshore wind
turbines, petroleum refining, microwave communications and laser-guided
missile defense systems -- has left manufacturers and countries
vulnerable to the availability and uninterrupted supply (largely from
China) of some key elements used to produce these technologies, called
rare earths. In the report, the IHS Chemical Rare Earth Minerals and
Products Report, production and consumption of these industrial
minerals in 2012 was more than 100 thousand metric tons (KMT).
During the study period of 2012 to 2017, IHS estimates average global
demand for rare earth products will grow by 7.6 percent annually,
reaching more than 150 KMT of consumption, with China leading
consumption growth at 8.3 percent annually. Rare earths are a set of 17
chemical elements in the periodic table, more specifically, the 15 lanthanides,
plus scandium and yttrium, which share similar chemical properties. Despite
their name, rare earth elements are fairly abundant. The challenge for
manufacturers and countries dependent upon these minerals
though, is two-fold. First, they generally occur naturally as mixtures
of various rare earth elements and are not always found in
economically exploitable concentrations. Second, the minerals must
be mined, then concentrated into rare earth oxides, and finally,
separated into individual rare earth elements and compounds. A major
proportion of the worlds rare earth reserves are located in China
the production and consumption of rare earths is dominated by
China. China alone accounted for more than 85 percent of world rare
earth production in 2012, and consumed approximately 70 percent.
In terms of consumption, Japan followed with approximately 15 percent of
world production in 2012, but has no domestic rare earth reserves. This
imbalance creates an uncomfortable dependence for Japan and other
countries requiring both a steady supply of these elements and
pricing stability. Recently, these issues came to a head in a dramatic way
according to Samantha Wietlisbach, principal analyst of specialty chemicals
at IHS Chemical and the reports lead author. Supply disruptions over the
last few years interrupted Japanese automotive and electronics industry
production and sent shock waves through the global manufacturing industries

that rely on rare earths, Wietlisbach said Other governments have realized
their national security interests and industrial sectors were vulnerable, since
China dominates the market in terms of both supply and demand,
she said. The supply shortages also resulted in unprecedented price
spikes, impacting global consumers of these materials. It was a wakeup call to address diversity of supply and to explore possible substitutions.
This, in turn, has led to many new mining projects being announced globally,
with rare earth ore as the main product.

REM prices and supply are stable now- our evidence is


predictive
Editorial Staff from the Magnetics Business and
Technology 4-7-14
(Global Market for Permanent Magnets to Reach $15 Billion by 2018,
http://www.magneticsmagazine.com/main/news/global-market-for-permanentmagnets-to-reach-15-billion-by-2018/, accessed 7/19/14, LLM)
With the heavy reliance on Neodymium magnets in manufacturing, rare earth
(RE) materials neodymium and dysprosium are playing a very important role
because of the scarcity of these materials and the dominance of a single
country (China) in providing them. The permanent magnet industry will start
to see the end of serious RE shortages as new supplies begin to hit the
market during 2014 and beyond, with new designs and new materials.
Applications related to permanent magnet direct current motors, brushless
direct current (BLDC) and brush-type (PMDC), and power generation will be
the largest usage segment of neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) permanent
magnets, followed by voice coil motors (VCMs) in disk drives, because of the
need for reduced size and higher performance. The third major usage
segment is hybrid and electric automotive drives. Several rare earth (RE)
elements are essential ingredients in the highest performance magnets
available in the world today; these magnets have enabled miniaturization and
a significant increase in power density in hundreds of applications. The
market experienced a boom in 2011, due to increased demand for RE
permanent magnets. But as demand increased, supply chain interruptions
resulted in a scarcity of RE permanent magnets. This affected the market
adversely, and it plunged in 2012. As the supply of REs became stable, the
market became stable, and it is expected to further stabilize in the
future. This stabilization is predicted because of a reduction in the amount of
dysprosium content in Neo magnets as well as a marked improvement in
overall magnetic properties of ferrite magnets. Globally, many other
countries have also started mining RE oxides in order to reduce dependence
on China. These initiatives and efforts of Western governments are expected
to bear fruit in the next five to 10 years. -

AT: Wind Now


Status quo cant trigger the link -- no increase in wind
energy
Jackson, award-winning columnist at the Boston Globe, 12

[Derrick, Wistful hopes for US offshore wind energy, Boston Globe,


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/12/29/wistful-hopes-for-offshorewind-energy/npbaIxVU4sAcnKSlnd3QRP/story.html, KB]
DESPITE ITS promise, the American wind industry is caught in the
crosswinds of American politics and that uncertain situation set
up a surreal contrast when wind enterprises gathered here to tout
their technologies. The American Wind Energy Associations conference
exhibition hall was full of European and multinational firms that are busy
plunging scores of turbines into their waters. German developers talked about
how the industry has transformed rusting homeland harbors into bustling
ports, while British officials boasted that industry investment in offshore wind
will leap from $8 billion in the last decade to $80 billion in the next eight
years. Representatives of American firms could only watch wistfully and
wish the US government cared as much about wind energy as Europe
does. Peter Duclos and Tim McAuliffe were two of those wistful watchers.
Gladding-Hearn, their Somerset, Mass., company, specializes in ferries, patrol
boats, pilot boats, and tugboats. They want to make boats to transport
workers and equipment out to turbines. Some people estimate that for every
10 to 15 turbines, you need a vessel to get the technicians out there, said
Duclos, the companys president. And every active shipyard means other
companies making more piping, electronics, even more business at the local
liquor store. If the East Coast had a thriving offshore-wind industry, the shipbuilding company could double its current workforce of 100, added McAuliffe,
the companys engineering liaison. We could support 200 if we cranked up a
second shift, he said. Those kind of boats are $3 million apiece. We make
five or six boats a year, but we could turn out one a month. Itll probably
never happen that way, but that could be $36 million a year. Whether
that happens all depends on politics, as does the fate of the
American wind industry itself. The Department of Energy estimates that
the potential power generation of offshore wind is approximately four times
the capacity of the current US electric-power system.

AT: WTO Ruling


China wont follow the WTO ruling
Revolve, sustainability news source, 13

[1/1/13, Revolve, Rare Earth: Chinese Shadows on Green Growth,


http://www.revolve-magazine.com/home/2013/01/01/rare-earth-chineseshadows-on-green-growth/, accessed 7/19/14, TYBG]
As the almost exclusive worldwide producer (97%), China has become
increasingly, following its skyrocketing growth, the main consumer of rare
earths. As domestic demand develops, the country reduces its exportation
quotas. In 2006, China exported 61,560 tons of rare earths of the 86,520 tons
officially produced, or more than 70%. In 2011, 93,800 tons were officially
produced, but the Chinese government had set the exportation quotas at
30,246 tons, barely 32%! The consequence: prices increased tenfold between
January 2010 and January 2011.
Confronted by these exponential and severe exportation restrictions imposed
by China, the European Union, Japan and the United States who, combined,
use over 90% of Chinese rare earth exportations decided in March 2012 to
register a joint complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO). In July
2012, with no agreement in sight, the WTO litigation body established a
working group that has six months to submit a series of recommendations
that China would be obliged to respect.
These will be difficult to enforce given that China has some solid arguments
in its favor. First, it justifies its quota policy by the necessity to eliminate
illegal mines which, according to the United States Geological Service,
accounted for 17-36% of total Chinese production between 2006 and 2011.
From Chinas perspective, the eradication of illegal mines is indispensable for
the preservation of their resources, which depends on reinforcing public
oligopolies, but also on reducing overall production. However, as a strong
emerging economy, China has to maintain its own supply and make decisions
to determine strategic stocks for the most critical rare earths.
The first adjustment variable was naturally to adjust exportation quotas. The
second argument justifying exportation quotas is far more devious. Heavily
criticized for the catastrophic management of the environmental
consequences of the extraction process, China claims it wants to support a
sustainability principle in managing its rare earth resources.

AT: Supply Influx


No new supply influx for rare-earth metals no mines will
be ready soon enough
Adams, Editor of Natural News Online, 10
[Mike, Natural News, Global Supply of Rare Earth Elements Could be Wiped
out by 2012,
http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html, KB]
China isn't the only geographic region where these rare earth elements are
found, but constructing mines to pull these elements out of the
ground takes many years. Some mines are under construction right
now in other countries that could help fill the demand for REEs, but making
them operational is "five to ten years away," says Lifton. That means
these other mines won't really be operational until 2015 - 2020.
Meanwhile, China could cut off its supply in 2012. That leaves a 3-7 year
gap in which these rare earth elements will be in disastrously short
supply. This brings up a couple of very important realizations related to
investments:

Links

Link Green Tech (General)


The plan uniquely triggers the link status quo supply is
keeping up with demand - an unexpected surge in alternatives
demand will outstrip supply
Yahoo Finance, 12

[3/12/12, "Rare Earth ETF Revocers on Improved Demand,"


finance.yahoo.com/news/rare-earth-etf-recovers-improved-190001151.html]
Economic turmoil in the U.S. and Europe has hurt rare-earth stocks, like
other mining stocks, Anthony Young, an analyst with Dahlman Rose & Co.,
said in a Wall Street Journal article. But I remain extremely bullish on the
rare-earths sector over the next three to five years. Whether prices for these
materials increase or decline, demand is going to remain extremely strong.
Current world demand for rare earths is estimated at 136,000 metric tons per
year and meeting supply levels, but industry expert Marc Humphries of the
U.S. Congressional Research Service expects global demand to increase to
185,000 tons by 2015 and cross 200,000 tons by 2020. Additionally, Dr.
Randolph E. Kirchain believes that advancements in green technology to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also require huge supplies of rare
earths, reports Esther Tanquintic-Misa for the International Buisness Times.
To meet that need, production of dysprosium would have to grow each year
at nearly twice the historic growth rate for rare earth supplies, Kirchain said.
Although the rare earths supply base has demonstrated an impressive
ability to expand over recent history, even the rare earths industry may
struggle to keep up with that pace of demand growth.

Link Wind
Unique link Critical rare earth supplies necessary for
wind are limited now but demand is keeping pace the
plan causes massive bottlenecks and price spikes -we are
100% dependent on China
Cho, analyst and reporter for Phys.org, 12
[Renee, 9/20/12, "Rare earth metals: Will we have
enough?,"phys.org/news/2012-09-rare-earth-metals.html]
"To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of
times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today," said
Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology and
professor of geology and geophysics at the Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies. There is no firm definition of rare earth metals, but
the term generally refers to metals used in small quantities. Rare earth
metals include: rare earth elements17 elements in the periodic table, the
15 lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium; six platinum group elements; and
other byproduct metals that occur in copper, gold, uranium, phosphates, iron
or zinc ores. While many rare earth metals are actually quite common, they
are seldom found in sufficient amounts to be extracted economically.
According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, world demand
for rare earth metals is estimated to be 136,000 tons per year, and projected
to rise to at least 185,000 tons annually by 2015. With continued global
growth of the middle class, especially in China, India and Africa, demand will
continue to grow. High-tech products and renewable energy technology
cannot function without rare earth metals. Neodymium, terbium and
dysprosium are essential ingredients in the magnets of wind turbines and
computer hard drives; a number of rare earth metals are used in nickelmetal-hydride rechargeable batteries that power electric vehicles and many
other products; yttrium is necessary for color TVs, fuel cells and fluorescent
lamps; europium is a component of compact fluorescent bulbs and TV and
iPhone screens; cerium and lanthanum are used in catalytic converters;
platinum group metals are needed as catalysts in fuel cell technology; and
other rare earth metals are essential for solar cells, cell phones, computer
chips, medical imaging, jet engines, defense technology, and much more.
Wind power has grown around 7 percent a year, increasing by a factor of 10
over the last decade, noted Peter Kelemen, Arthur D. Storke Memorial
Professor of Geochemistry at the Earth Institute's Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory. "Every megawatt of electricity needs 200 kilograms of
neodymiumor 20 percent of one ton," he said. "So if every big wind turbine
produces one megawatt, five turbines will require one ton of neodymium. If
wind is going to play a major part in replacing fossil fuels, we will need to
increase our supply of neodymium." A recent MIT study projected that
neodymium demand could grow by as much as 700 percent over the next 25
years; demand for dysprosium, also needed for wind turbines, could increase
by 2,600 percent. China currently supplies 97 percent of global rare earth
metal demand, and 100 percent of heavy rare earth metals such as terbium
and dysprosium, used in wind turbines. In 2005, it began restricting exports
to preserve resources and protect the environment, causing prices to soar.

Today, the United States is 100 percent dependent on imports for rare earth
metals. From the mid-1960s through the 1980s, however, Molycorp's
Mountain Pass mine in California was the world's main source of rare earth
metals. As the U.S. share of rare earth metal production declined, China used
government support, research and development, training programs, cheap
labor and low prices to develop its supply chain, increasing its share of rare
earth metal production from 27 percent in 1990 to 97 percent in 2011. In
March, the U.S., Japan and the European Union lodged a complaint with the
World Trade Organization over China's limits on rare earth exports. In
response, China announced that it will export 30,996 more metric tons of rare
earth metals in 2012 than it did in 2011.

And, no turns or thumpers only government incentives


for wind production trigger the link best studies prove
Green Car Congress, renewable energy news source, 12
[Report based on MIT Research, 3/9/12, GCG, "MIT study finds shift to green
energy sources could mean crunch in supply of key rare earth elements,"
www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03/ree-20120309.html]
A large-scale shift from coal-fired electric power plants and gasoline-fueled
cars to wind turbines and electric vehicles could increase demand for two
already-scarce rare earth elements (REE)dysprosium and neodymium,
available almost exclusively in Chinaby 600-2,600 percent over the next 25
years, according to a new study published in the ACS journal Environmental
Science & Technology. The study by researchers at MIT also points out that
production of the two metals has been increasing by only a few percentage
points per year. ...the availability of REEs appears to be at risk based on a
number of factors. Of particular significance, one country (China) controls
98% of current supply (production). Historically, much lower levels of market
concentration have harmed manufacturing firms. For example, in 1978 Zaire
controlled 48% of the cobalt supply and yet political unrest in Zaire resulted
in a disruption to global supply that became known as the Cobalt Crisis.
Another contributor to supply risk for REEs is the fact that they are comined;
individual REEs are not mined separately. REEs are found together in
geological deposits, rendering mining of individual elements economically
inefficient. The supply of any individual REE depends on the geology of the
deposits, the costs of the extraction technology employed, and the price of
the basket of rare earths (RE). Finally, REEs have come under global scrutiny
due to the environmental and social conditions under which they are mined,
further increasing their supply risk. Alonso et al. While the literature
contains a number of reports that evaluate different aspects of RE
availability, Randolph E. Kirchain, Ph.D., and colleagues evaluated future
potential demand scenarios for REEs with a focus on the issue of comining.
They analyzed the supply of lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium,
samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium and yttrium under
various scenarios, and projected the demand for these 10 rare earth
elements through 2035. In particular, they estimated resource requirements
for electric vehicles and windturbines (revolutionary demand areas for REEs)
from performance specifications and vehicle sales or turbine deployment
projections. Future demand was estimated for a range of scenarios including
one developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) with adoption of

electric vehicles and wind turbines at a rate consistent with stabilization of


CO2 in the atmosphere at a level of 450 ppm. In one scenario, demand for
dysprosium and neodymium could be higher than 2,600 and 700 percent
respectively. To meet that need, production of dysprosium would have to grow
each year at nearly twice the historic growth rate for rare earth supplies. The
applications that will be most negatively affected by constraints in these
REEs (i.e., increased costs) will be those dependent upon high performance
magnets. Applications such as petroleum refining, which depend on elements
whose supply is projected to exceed demand, may be positively affected if
primary producers increase overall production to meet the higher demand for
specific elements. If a secondary market emerges to meet the higher demand
for specific elements (i.e., recycling of magnets, but not catalysts), then,
given that the portfolio of recycled REEs would be significantly different from
the portfolio of primary supply, the overall supply portfolio of REEs could
change. ...In the end, prices are not the only forces that will influence the REE
markets. Government intervention in this market is prevalent. Also, corporate
social responsibility policies may influence some firms decisions to use REE
unless environmental concerns around their mining are addressed. These
issues should be considered carefully by interested stakeholders and future
research on this topic. Government mandates and incentives for renewables
massively increase rare earth demand especially for solar and wind The
Obama administration has touted solar panel manufacturing as a green-job
growth sector. Production of photovoltaic cells for solar panels relies on
tellurium. However, the worlds only tellurium mine is in China. Tellurium is
also produced as a by-product of copper purification, and a number of
countries produce limited quantities this way. However, the decline in U.S.
lead mining and movement to lower grades of copper ore, which require a
different refining process, has reduced domestic tellurium recovery. Demand
has also increased due to government green energy subsidies and mandates
to increase their use. As a result, imports of tellurium have soared along with
its price. The U.S. Geological Survey notes that the price of tellurium
increased 14-fold between 2002 and 2006.3 From 2003 to 2007 China
supplied 13 percent of U.S. tellurium imports. However, by September 2010
Chinas share of imports had grown to 43 percent and it is currently the single
largest source of imported tellurium.4 Chinas share of world tellurium
production will likely grow since it has also become the worlds largest copper
consumer and refiner. In 2009, China used approximately 40 percent of the
worlds copper production. China now is the worlds largest purifier of
tellurium from copper, lead and other ores where it is found as a trace
element. Chinas near monopoly has made it virtually impossible for
American solar power companies to compete with Chinese-owned firms. For
instance, according to Manufacturing and Technology News [see Figure I]:5 In
2003, China produced only 1 percent of the worlds solar panels but by 2009
its share had grown to 38 percent. In 2003, U.S. production of solar panels
accounted for 14 percent of the world total, but by 2009 the U.S. share had
fallen to just 4 percent. Production in countries other than China fell from 85
percent of the world market in 2003 to 58 percent in 2009. The boom in
Chinas solar panel production has driven down the prices of similar U.S.
products by around 50 percent, which is good for consumers in the short-run
but not good for U.S. manufacturing jobs.6 Solar panel manufacturer

Solyndra, Inc., for instance, despite more than $500 million in federal grants
and loan guarantees, declared bankruptcy in September 2011, citing its
inability to compete with cheaper Chinese solar panels.7 Currently, as Figure
II shows, a number of technologies depend on rare earths. For example,
neodymium and lanthanum are essential components in the newest
generation of batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles. Thus, domestic
manufacture of these vehicles depends on Chinas willingness to export rare
earths. Wind power is also promoted as a way to decrease American energy
dependence; however, as with electric cars, the magnets in wind-powered
electrical generators require neodymium. General Electric, one of the leading
companies developing wind energy technologies, purchases its entire supply
of neodymium from China. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates
that the magnets in wind turbines and electric cars alone account for as
much as 40 percent of worldwide demand.8

Wind Generation saps 40% of global supplies now an


increase would be devastating
Burnett 11 (Sterling, senior fellow with the Natonal Center for Policy
Analysis"Will Green Energy Make the United States Less Secure?" November
1, 2011 www.ncpa.org/pub/ib103)
Wind power is also promoted as a way to decrease American energy
dependence; however, as with electric cars, the magnets in wind-powered
electrical generators require neodymium. General Electric, one of the leading
companies developing wind energy technologies, purchases its entire supply
of neodymium from China. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates
that the magnets in wind turbines and electric cars alone account for as
much as 40 percent of worldwide demand.8

Rapid wind infrastructure development causes rare earth


supply bottlenecks causes price hikes and tradeoffs
best studies prove
Chandler, MIT News Office, 12
[David Chandler, 4/9/12, "Clearn energy could lead to scarce materials,"
web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/rare-earth-alternative-energy-0409.html]
As the world moves toward greater use of low-carbon and zero-carbon energy
sources, a possible bottleneck looms, according to a new MIT study: the
supply of certain metals needed for key clean-energy technologies. Wind
turbines, one of the fastest-growing sources of emissions-free electricity, rely
on magnets that use the rare earth element neodymium. And the element
dysprosium is an essential ingredient in some electric vehicles motors. The
supply of both elements currently imported almost exclusively from China
could face significant shortages in coming years, the research found. The
study, led by a team of researchers at MITs Materials Systems Laboratory
postdoc Elisa Alonso PhD 10, research scientist Richard Roth PhD 92, senior
research scientist Frank R. Field PhD 85 and principal research scientist
Randolph Kirchain PhD 99 has been published online in the journal
Environmental Science & Technology, and will appear in print in a
forthcoming issue. Three researchers from Ford Motor Company are coauthors. The study looked at 10 so-called rare earth metals, a group of 17
elements that have similar properties and which despite their name are

not particularly rare at all. All 10 elements studied have some uses in hightech equipment, in many cases in technology related to low-carbon energy.
Of those 10, two are likely to face serious supply challenges in the coming
years. The biggest challenge is likely to be for dysprosium: Demand could
increase by 2,600 percent over the next 25 years, according to the study.
Neodymium demand could increase by as much as 700 percent. Both
materials have exceptional magnetic properties that make them especially
well-suited to use in highly efficient, lightweight motors and batteries. A
single large wind turbine (rated at about 3.5 megawatts) typically contains
600 kilograms, or about 1,300 pounds, of rare earth metals. A conventional
car uses a little more than one pound of rare earth materials mostly in
small motors, such as those that run the windshield wipers but an electric
car might use nearly 10 times as much of the material in its lightweight
batteries and motors. Currently, China produces 98 percent of the worlds
rare earth metals, making those metals the most geographically
concentrated of any commercial-scale resource, Kirchain says. Historically,
production of these metals has increased by only a few percent each year,
with the greatest spurts reaching about 12 percent annually. But much higher
increases in production will be needed to meet the expected new demand,
the study shows. China has about 50 percent of known reserves of rare earth
metals; the United States also has significant deposits. Mining of these
materials in the United States had ceased almost entirely mostly because
of environmental regulations that have increased the cost of production
but improved mining methods are making these sources usable again.

Link - Solar
Unique link Critical rare earth supplies necessary for
solar are limited now but demand is keeping pace the
plan causes massive bottlenecks and price spikes -we are
100% dependent on China
Cho, analyst and reporter for Phys.org, 12
[Renee, 9/20/12, "Rare earth metals: Will we have
enough?,"phys.org/news/2012-09-rare-earth-metals.html]
"To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of
times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today," said
Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology and
professor of geology and geophysics at the Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies. There is no firm definition of rare earth metals, but
the term generally refers to metals used in small quantities. Rare earth
metals include: rare earth elements17 elements in the periodic table, the
15 lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium; six platinum group elements; and
other byproduct metals that occur in copper, gold, uranium, phosphates, iron
or zinc ores. While many rare earth metals are actually quite common, they
are seldom found in sufficient amounts to be extracted economically.
According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, world demand
for rare earth metals is estimated to be 136,000 tons per year, and projected
to rise to at least 185,000 tons annually by 2015. With continued global
growth of the middle class, especially in China, India and Africa, demand will
continue to grow. High-tech products and renewable energy technology
cannot function without rare earth metals. Neodymium, terbium and
dysprosium are essential ingredients in the magnets of wind turbines and
computer hard drives; a number of rare earth metals are used in nickelmetal-hydride rechargeable batteries that power electric vehicles and many
other products; yttrium is necessary for color TVs, fuel cells and fluorescent
lamps; europium is a component of compact fluorescent bulbs and TV and
iPhone screens; cerium and lanthanum are used in catalytic converters;
platinum group metals are needed as catalysts in fuel cell technology; and
other rare earth metals are essential for solar cells, cell phones, computer
chips, medical imaging, jet engines, defense technology, and much more.
Wind power has grown around 7 percent a year, increasing by a factor of 10
over the last decade, noted Peter Kelemen, Arthur D. Storke Memorial
Professor of Geochemistry at the Earth Institute's Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory. "Every megawatt of electricity needs 200 kilograms of
neodymiumor 20 percent of one ton," he said. "So if every big wind turbine
produces one megawatt, five turbines will require one ton of neodymium. If
wind is going to play a major part in replacing fossil fuels, we will need to
increase our supply of neodymium." A recent MIT study projected that
neodymium demand could grow by as much as 700 percent over the next 25
years; demand for dysprosium, also needed for wind turbines, could increase
by 2,600 percent. China currently supplies 97 percent of global rare earth
metal demand, and 100 percent of heavy rare earth metals such as terbium
and dysprosium, used in wind turbines. In 2005, it began restricting exports
to preserve resources and protect the environment, causing prices to soar.

Today, the United States is 100 percent dependent on imports for rare earth
metals. From the mid-1960s through the 1980s, however, Molycorp's
Mountain Pass mine in California was the world's main source of rare earth
metals. As the U.S. share of rare earth metal production declined, China used
government support, research and development, training programs, cheap
labor and low prices to develop its supply chain, increasing its share of rare
earth metal production from 27 percent in 1990 to 97 percent in 2011. In
March, the U.S., Japan and the European Union lodged a complaint with the
World Trade Organization over China's limits on rare earth exports. In
response, China announced that it will export 30,996 more metric tons of rare
earth metals in 2012 than it did in 2011.

And, no turns or thumpers only government incentives


for solar production trigger the link best studies prove
Green Car Congress, renewable energy news source, 12
[Report based on MIT Research, 3/9/12, GCG, "MIT study finds shift to green
energy sources could mean crunch in supply of key rare earth elements,"
www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03/ree-20120309.html]
A large-scale shift from coal-fired electric power plants and gasoline-fueled
cars to wind turbines and electric vehicles could increase demand for two
already-scarce rare earth elements (REE)dysprosium and neodymium,
available almost exclusively in Chinaby 600-2,600 percent over the next 25
years, according to a new study published in the ACS journal Environmental
Science & Technology. The study by researchers at MIT also points out that
production of the two metals has been increasing by only a few percentage
points per year. ...the availability of REEs appears to be at risk based on a
number of factors. Of particular significance, one country (China) controls
98% of current supply (production). Historically, much lower levels of market
concentration have harmed manufacturing firms. For example, in 1978 Zaire
controlled 48% of the cobalt supply and yet political unrest in Zaire resulted
in a disruption to global supply that became known as the Cobalt Crisis.
Another contributor to supply risk for REEs is the fact that they are comined;
individual REEs are not mined separately. REEs are found together in
geological deposits, rendering mining of individual elements economically
inefficient. The supply of any individual REE depends on the geology of the
deposits, the costs of the extraction technology employed, and the price of
the basket of rare earths (RE). Finally, REEs have come under global scrutiny
due to the environmental and social conditions under which they are mined,
further increasing their supply risk. Alonso et al. While the literature
contains a number of reports that evaluate different aspects of RE
availability, Randolph E. Kirchain, Ph.D., and colleagues evaluated future
potential demand scenarios for REEs with a focus on the issue of comining.
They analyzed the supply of lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium,
samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium and yttrium under
various scenarios, and projected the demand for these 10 rare earth
elements through 2035. In particular, they estimated resource requirements
for electric vehicles and windturbines (revolutionary demand areas for REEs)
from performance specifications and vehicle sales or turbine deployment
projections. Future demand was estimated for a range of scenarios including
one developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) with adoption of

electric vehicles and wind turbines at a rate consistent with stabilization of


CO2 in the atmosphere at a level of 450 ppm. In one scenario, demand for
dysprosium and neodymium could be higher than 2,600 and 700 percent
respectively. To meet that need, production of dysprosium would have to grow
each year at nearly twice the historic growth rate for rare earth supplies. The
applications that will be most negatively affected by constraints in these
REEs (i.e., increased costs) will be those dependent upon high performance
magnets. Applications such as petroleum refining, which depend on elements
whose supply is projected to exceed demand, may be positively affected if
primary producers increase overall production to meet the higher demand for
specific elements. If a secondary market emerges to meet the higher demand
for specific elements (i.e., recycling of magnets, but not catalysts), then,
given that the portfolio of recycled REEs would be significantly different from
the portfolio of primary supply, the overall supply portfolio of REEs could
change. ...In the end, prices are not the only forces that will influence the REE
markets. Government intervention in this market is prevalent. Also, corporate
social responsibility policies may influence some firms decisions to use REE
unless environmental concerns around their mining are addressed. These
issues should be considered carefully by interested stakeholders and future
research on this topic. Government mandates and incentives for renewables
massively increase rare earth demand especially for solar and wind The
Obama administration has touted solar panel manufacturing as a green-job
growth sector. Production of photovoltaic cells for solar panels relies on
tellurium. However, the worlds only tellurium mine is in China. Tellurium is
also produced as a by-product of copper purification, and a number of
countries produce limited quantities this way. However, the decline in U.S.
lead mining and movement to lower grades of copper ore, which require a
different refining process, has reduced domestic tellurium recovery. Demand
has also increased due to government green energy subsidies and mandates
to increase their use. As a result, imports of tellurium have soared along with
its price. The U.S. Geological Survey notes that the price of tellurium
increased 14-fold between 2002 and 2006.3 From 2003 to 2007 China
supplied 13 percent of U.S. tellurium imports. However, by September 2010
Chinas share of imports had grown to 43 percent and it is currently the single
largest source of imported tellurium.4 Chinas share of world tellurium
production will likely grow since it has also become the worlds largest copper
consumer and refiner. In 2009, China used approximately 40 percent of the
worlds copper production. China now is the worlds largest purifier of
tellurium from copper, lead and other ores where it is found as a trace
element. Chinas near monopoly has made it virtually impossible for
American solar power companies to compete with Chinese-owned firms. For
instance, according to Manufacturing and Technology News [see Figure I]:5 In
2003, China produced only 1 percent of the worlds solar panels but by 2009
its share had grown to 38 percent. In 2003, U.S. production of solar panels
accounted for 14 percent of the world total, but by 2009 the U.S. share had
fallen to just 4 percent. Production in countries other than China fell from 85
percent of the world market in 2003 to 58 percent in 2009. The boom in
Chinas solar panel production has driven down the prices of similar U.S.
products by around 50 percent, which is good for consumers in the short-run
but not good for U.S. manufacturing jobs.6 Solar panel manufacturer

Solyndra, Inc., for instance, despite more than $500 million in federal grants
and loan guarantees, declared bankruptcy in September 2011, citing its
inability to compete with cheaper Chinese solar panels.7 Currently, as Figure
II shows, a number of technologies depend on rare earths. For example,
neodymium and lanthanum are essential components in the newest
generation of batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles. Thus, domestic
manufacture of these vehicles depends on Chinas willingness to export rare
earths. Wind power is also promoted as a way to decrease American energy
dependence; however, as with electric cars, the magnets in wind-powered
electrical generators require neodymium. General Electric, one of the leading
companies developing wind energy technologies, purchases its entire supply
of neodymium from China. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates
that the magnets in wind turbines and electric cars alone account for as
much as 40 percent of worldwide demand.8

Solar economy requires 50% of all available supplies


causes massive bottlenecks and tradeoffs that collapse
competing industries and prevent a transition to
renewables
Spence, writer for EurActiv, 11
[Timothy, 11/16/11, "Rare-earth shortage to hamper clean energy: EU study,"
www.euractiv.com/sustainability/rare-earth-shortage-hamper-clean-news508967]
Looming shortages of metals that are in high demand and dominated by a
single supplier China threaten Europes goals for cleaner transport and
sustainable energy, says a new study prepared for the European Commission.
The study by the Joint Research Centre says supply shortfalls of component
metals in the next two decades risk the production of solar, wind and nuclear
technologies as well as electric vehicles and carbon-capture systems. This
adds more evidence to the fact that Europe has to look within itself and
more toward waste management, to re-use existing metals, said Dr.
Raymond Moss, lead author of the report. The findings could have serious
implications for the EUs Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in
2050 that hinges on development of renewable energy, cleaner transport as
well as modernising and integrating Europes electricity grids. Such ambitions
depend heavily on the availability of neodymium, dysprosium, indium,
tellurium and gallium, metals that are in demand globally. EUs vital raw
materials The Commission has already identified many so-called rare-earth
minerals as well as metals like cobalt in its lists of 14 economically vital raw
materials that are prone to supply disruption. The JRC study is part of the
Commissions examination of raw material needs. Europe depends on imports
for nearly all of its rare-earth metals. Though many are in abundant supply on
the planet, the metals are dispersed or difficult to access, and despite their
importance to green energy, require intensive mining and processing. China
controls more than 90% of the market. In July, the World Trade Organisation
called on China to ease its export restrictions on 17 rare-earth metals
important to energy, transport and electronics manufacturing. Shortages or
limitations on supply would have serious impact on many industries. But with
solar and wind power expected to account for the biggest energy growth
markets over the next 20 years, the impact on alternative energy could be

profound. The JRC report says five metals - dysprosium, neodymium,


tellurium, gallium, and indium - are at the highest risk of supply bottlenecks
from high demand, concentration of supply and high political risks due to an
extreme concentration of supply in China. The study examines 14 rare-earth
metals. Solar energy technologies, for example, will require half the current
world supply of tellurium and 25% of the supply of indium, the report says.
Europes wind energy technology will require about 4% of the supply of both
neodymium and dysprosium. While the percent might be small, it could have
a significant effect on wind technology, Moss told EurActiv. The concern, he
said is that 90 percent of the source is in China at the moment, and they
themselves have a rapidly growing demand for the same metals whilst they
have also limited restrictions on export.

Independently, REMs are key to solar development


Chinese monopoly kills the industry and destroys
international cooperation on solar
Finley, writer for the Denver Post, 11

[Bruce, 1/16/11, Denver Post, China's control of rare-earth metals poses risk
to U.S. solar future, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17108810]
China's tight control of rare metals may hurt developing domestic solar
industries, according to a research director at the National Renewable
Energy Lab. "Folks are looking at, if we don't get it from China, how will
we get it?" said Ryne Raffaele, director of the center for
photovoltaics at NREL, the U.S. government's premier energy lab.
"Can it easily be mined?" Scientists at NREL, west of Denver, use an array
of rare metals in their research. The Chinese government's recent move
to cut rare-metal exports by 35 percent and rapid growth of solar-panel
manufacturing inside China also are chilling the climate for scientific
cooperation. China produces 55 percent of the world's solar panels.

Link Government Incentives


Government incentives for wind generation would
hamstring global REM supplies
The Economist 12
[3/17/12, "In a hole?," www.economist.com/node/21550243]
MANY plans for reducing the world's emissions of carbon dioxideat least,
those plans formulated by environmentalists who are not of the hair-shirt,
back-to-the-caves persuasioninvolve peppering the landscape with wind
turbines and replacing petrol-guzzling vehicles with electric ones charged up
using energy gathered from renewable resources. The hope is that the level
of CO2 in the atmosphere can thus be kept below what is widely agreed to be
the upper limit for a tolerable level of global warming, 450 parts per million.
Wind turbines and electric vehicles, however, both rely on dysprosium and
neodymium to make the magnets that are essential to their generators and
motors. These two elements, part of a group called the rare-earth metals,
have unusual configurations of electrons orbiting their nuclei, and thus
unusually powerful magnetic properties. Finding substitutes would be hard.
Motors or generators whose magnets were made of other materials would be
heavier, less efficient or both. At the moment, that is not too much of a
problem. Though a lot of the supply of rare earths comes from China, whose
government has recently been restricting exports (a restriction that was the
subject of a challenge lodged with the World Trade Organisation by America,
Europe and Japan on March 13th), other known sources could be brought into
play reasonably quickly, like the Mountain Pass mine in California, pictured
above, which re-opened for business in February. At current levels of demand
any problem caused by the geographical concentration of supply would thus
be an irritating blip rather than an existential crisis. But what if the
environmentalists' dream came true? Could demand for dysprosium and
neodymium then be met? That was the question Randolph Kirchain, Elisa
Alonso and Frank Field, three materials scientists at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, asked themselves recently. Their answer, just
published in Environmental Science and Technology, is that if wind turbines
and electric vehicles are going to fulfil the role environmental planners have
assigned them in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, using current
technologies would require an increase in the supply of neodymium and
dysprosium of more than 700% and 2,600% respectively during the next 25
years. At the moment, the supply of these metals is increasing by 6% a year.
To match the three researchers' projections it would actually have to increase
by 8% a year for neodymium and 14% for dysprosium. That will be hard,
particularly for dysprosium. Incremental improvements to motors and
generators might be expected to bring demand down a bit. But barring a
breakthrough in magnet technology (the discovery of a room-temperature
superconductor, for example) the three researchers' figures suggest that the
world's geologists would do well to start scouring the planet for rare-earth
ores now. If they do not, the mood of the Chinese government may be the
least of the headaches faced by magnet manufacturers.

Impact/Misc

2NC Turns Case


Turns the case - rare-earth supply bottlenecks prevent a
transition and collapse the economy
Vidal, writer for the Guardian, 12
[John, 1/27/12, The Guardian, "Rare minerals dearth threatens global
renewables industry," www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/27/rareminerals-global-renewables-industry]
Shortages of a handful of rare minerals could slow the future growth of the
burgeoning renewable energy industries, and affect countries' chances of
limiting greenhouse gas emissions, business leaders were told at the World
Economic Forum in Davos this week. Last year, prices of many scarce
minerals exploded, rising as much as 10 times over 2010 levels before
dropping back, said PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Terbium, yttrium,
dysprosium, europium and neodymium are widely used in the manufacture of
wind turbines, solar panels, electric car batteries and energy-efficient
lightbulbs. But because these "rare earths" are mined almost exclusively in
China, it is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to source them in
the required quantities. In a survey of some of the largest clean energy
manufacturers, 78% told PwC said they were already experiencing instability
of supply of rare metals, and most said they did not expect shortages to ease
for at least five years. Currently, 95% of the rare earth minerals needed by
clean tech industries come from China which has set strict export quotas.
Last year China reserved most for its own for its domestic wind, solar and
battery industries, shifting costs to the US and Europe which do not mine any
of the minerals. Scarcity of the mineral resources could affect disrupt entire
supply chains and countries' attempts to meet emissions targets, said PwC.
"The energy sector could face very great problems if the world turns to
[renewables] in a big way. In the short term, there will be major supply
problems. The availability of these metals will define the growth of these
industry sectors. There are so far not many alternatives," said Rob Mathlener,
author of a report that urged companies to build future strategies around
recycling and reusing resources. Last December, Janez Potonik, the EU
commissioner for the environment, warned that the waste of valuable natural
resources threatens to produce a fresh economic crisis. None of the minerals
is likely to physically run out, but it can take 10 years for countries to open
new mines. In the US there has been growing concerns that China dominates
the supply of the materials considered crucial for the expansion of the US
defence, computer and renewable energy sectors.

Status quo REM supply growth is keeping up with global


demand but supplies cannot increase fast enough to solve
the aff supply bottlenecks wreck solvency
Trujillo, researcher at the Columbia Climate Centre, 12
[Iliana Cardenes, 4/2/12, Columbia University, "Rare Earth Metals: Another
Challenge for the Green Economy?," blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/04/02/rareearth-metals-another-challenge-for-the-green-economy/]
Historically, their rarity has not posed a problem, as there has been adequate
supply to meet global demand. But questions are being raised about the

future of the supply. China mines 94 to 97% of the rare earth metals globally,
and while there have been increasing efforts in the US and Europe to find
alternative supplies, the complex and highly polluting extraction process is
proving problematic. Chinas global monopoly is an increasing worry: their
halt of rare earth exports to Japan in 2010 led to a 30-fold increase in the
price of rare earth metals by the summer of 2011; with a subsequent
plummeting of up to three fifths from that price, indicating the current
volatility. Two weeks ago, the US, EU and Japan filed a formal request for
consultation with the WTO about Chinas increasing restrictions on the
exports of their rare earth metals. There will be a legal case in May 2012 if
China does not agree to the demands. This constraint on supply is worrying
for climate change because if clean technologies are to contribute
significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, then the supply of
rare earth metals needs to increase with the growth in the sector. Randolph
Kirchain, Elisa Alonso and Frank Field, of MIT, recently explained in
Environmental Science and Technology that in order for clean technologies to
contribute significantly to reducing greenhouse gases, we would require an
increase of neodymium and dysprosium of over 700% and 2600%
respectively in the next 25 years. The supply of these metals is currently
increasing at 6% a year, and is under threat. In order to meet demand for
clean technologies, the supply would have to increase by 8% and 14%.

We control the brink REM supplies are highly limited


now increased demand causes shortages for other
industries dependent on rare earth
Vidal, writer for the Guardian, 12

[John,1/27/12, The Guardian, "Rare minerals dearth threatens global


renewables industry," www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/27/rareminerals-global-renewables-industry]
Six other core manufacturing industries, including aerospace, automotive and
chemicals, were all found to be experiencing shortages. According to the US
Congress report published last September, world demand for rare elements is
estimated at 136,000 tonnes per year, with global production around 133,600
tonnes in 2010. It is projected to rise to at least 185,000 tonnes a year by
2015.

Neodymium shortage turns the case cant deploy clean


energy without it
North American Wind Power, News Department, 11
[North American Wind Power, December 27, 2011, DOE: Rare-Earth Supply
May Threaten Wind Turbine Production,
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?
content.9125, KB]
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has released the 2011 Critical
Materials Strategy - a report that examines the role that rare-earth
metals and other key materials play in clean energy technologies
such as wind turbines. According to the report, several clean energy
technologies use materials that are at risk of supply disruptions in
the short term, with risks generally decreasing in the medium and long
terms. Supply challenges for five rare-earth metals - dysprosium,

neodymium, terbium, europium and yttrium - may affect clean energy


technology deployment in the years ahead, the DOE says. This is the
DOE's second report on this topic and provides an update to last year's
analysis. Using a methodology adapted from the National Academy of
Sciences, the report includes criticality assessments for 16 elements based
on their importance to clean energy and supply risk. The DOEs critical
materials research and development (R&D) plan is aligned with the three
pillars of the DOE strategy: diversifying supply, developing substitutes and
improving recycling.

AT: Ocean Mining


Shortages and high prices incentivize ocean mining
collapses marine ecosystems
Cho, analyst and reporter for Phys.org, 12
[Renee, 9/20/12, Phys.org, "Rare earth metals: Will we have enough?,"
phys.org/news/2012-09-rare-earth-metals.html]
Because of rising prices, there is now renewed interest in seabed mining for
rare earth metals. Since the 1960s, scientists have known about the
existence of manganese nodules, rocks abundant in water 4,000 to 5,000
meters deep that contain nickel, copper, cobalt, manganese and rare earth
metals, but in the past, mining them never made economic sense. In 2011, a
Japanese team found huge deposits of rare earth metals, including terbium
and dysprosium, in sea mud 3,500 to 6,000 meters deep in the Pacific Ocean.
One square kilometer (0.4 square mile) of deposits will be able to provide
one-fifth of the current global annual consumption, according to Yasuhiro
Kato, an associate professor of earth science at the University of Tokyo. The
New York Times recently reported the discovery of deposits of gold, silver,
copper, cobalt, lead and zinc in the sulfurous mounds that gush hot water
from fissures near active volcanic areas on the ocean floor. Seabed mining,
however, could cause great damage to fisheries and marine ecosystems, so
environmentalists are pushing for more research and mitigation planning
before it begins.

Ocean floor mining devastates ecosystems and


permanently damages massive regions
Goldenberg, environmental correspondent for The
Guardian, 14
[Suzanne, 3/1/14, The Guardian, Marine mining: Underwater gold rush
sparks fears of ocean catastrophe,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/underwater-goldrush-marine-mining-fears-ocean-threat]
This is the last frontier: the ocean floor, 4,000 metres beneath the
waters of the central Pacific, where mining companies are now
exploring for the rich deposits of ores needed to keep industry humming
and smartphones switched on. The prospect of a race to the bottom of
the ocean a 21st-century high seas version of the Klondike gold rush has
alarmed scientists. The oceans, which make up 45% of the world's
surface, are already degraded by overfishing, industrial waste,
plastic debris and climate change, which is altering their chemistry.
Now comes a new extractive industry and scientists say
governments are not prepared. "It's like a land grab," said Sylvia Earle,
an oceanographer and explorer-in-residence for National Geographic. "It's a
handful of individuals who are giving away or letting disproportionate special
interests have access to large parts of the planet that just happen to be
under water." The vast expanses of the central Pacific seabed being opened
up for mining are still largely an unknown, she said. "What are we sacrificing
by looking at the deep sea with dollar signs on the few tangible materials

that we know are there? We haven't begun to truly explore the ocean
before we have started aiming to exploit it." But the warnings may arrive
too late. The price of metals is rising. The ore content of the nodules of
copper, manganese, cobalt and rare earths strewn across the ocean floor
promise to be 10 times greater than the richest seams on land, making the
cost of their retrieval from the extreme depths more attractive to companies.
Mining the ocean floor of the central Pacific on a commercial scale is five
years away, but the beginnings of an underwater gold rush are under way
The number of companies seeking to mine beneath international waters has
tripled in the last three or four years. "We have already got a gold rush, in a
way," said Michael Lodge, deputy secretary general of the International
Seabed Authority, which regulates the use of the sea floor in international
waters. "The amount of activity has expanded exponentially." The
Jamaica-based agency has granted 26 permits to date to explore an area the
size of Mexico beneath the central Pacific that had been set aside for seabed
mining all but eight within the last three or four years. Britain is leading the
way in a project led by Lockheed Martin, but Russia, China, Japan, and South
Korea all have projects in play. This year alone, companies from Brazil,
Germany and the Cook Islands have obtained permits to explore tracts of up
to 75,000 sq km on the ocean floor for copper, cobalt, nickel and manganese,
and the rare earth metals that help power smartphones, tablets and other
devices. Other areas of the Pacific outside international waters are also
opening up for mining. Papua New Guinea has granted permission to a
Canadian firm, Nautilus Minerals, to explore a site 30km off its coast for
copper, zinc and gold deposit worth potentially hundreds of millions of
dollars. Lodge expects the pace to continue, with rising demand for metals
for emerging economies, and for technologies such as hybrid cars and smart
phones. Extracting the metals will not require drilling. The ore deposits are in
nodules strewn across the rolling plains of sediment that carpet the ocean
floor. Oceanographers say they resemble knobbly black potatoes, ranging in
size from a couple of centimetres to 30cm. Mining companies say it may be
possible to scoop them up with giant tongs and then siphon them up to
vessels waiting on the surface. The problem is much remains unknown
not just about what exists on the ocean floor but how ocean systems
operate to keep the planet habitable. The ocean floor was once thought
to be a marine desert, but oceanographers say the sediment is rich in marine
life, with thousands of species of invertebrates at a single site. "It's tampering
with ecosystems we hardly understand that are really at the frontier of
our knowledge base," said Greg Stone, vice-president for Conservation
International. "We are starting mining extracting operations in a place
where we don't fully understand how it works yet. So that is our
concern disturbing the deep sea habitat." Most of the models rely on
being able to produce 1 million tonnes of ore a year. Stone said the seabed
authority was putting systems in place to protect the ocean floor, but other
scientists said there still remained enormous risks to the sediment
and the creatures that live there. "It is going to damage vast areas of the
sea floor," said Craig Smith, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii

who served as an adviser to the International Seabed Authority. "I just don't
see any way [in] mining one of these claims that whole areas won't
be heavily damaged." Earle expressed fears about how mining
companies will deal with waste in the high seas. "Mining is possible,"
she said. "But the 20,000ft question is what do you do with the tailings?
All of the proposals involved dumping the tailings at sea with profound
impacts on the water column and the sea floor below. The Seabed Authority
initially proposed to set aside 1.6m sq km of the ocean floor as protected
areas, or about 20% of its territory. But those reserves are under review. As
economic pressures rise, there are fears that commercial operations
would begin to erode those protected areas. "I think it is certain that
within a year or two there will be more claims covering these areas and there
won't be enough room left to develop these scientifically defensible protected
areas," Smith said. Some have argued that with all the unknowns there
should be no mining at all and that the high seas should remain out of
bounds for mineral extraction and for shipping. Jos Mara Figueres, a former
president of Costa Rica and co-chair with the former British foreign secretary,
David Miliband, of the Global Ocean Commission, an independent entity
charged with developing ideas for ocean reform, suggested leaving all of the
high seas as a no-go area for commercial exploitation (apart from shipping).
"Do we know enough about the seabed to go ahead and mine it?" said
Figueres. "Do we understand enough about the interconnection between the
seabed, the column of water, the 50% of the oxygen that the ocean produces
for the world, the 25% of the carbon that it fixes in order to go in and disrupt
the seabed in way that we would if we went in and started mining? I don't
think so, not until we have scientific backing to determine whether this is
something good or bad for the planet." World leaders are now mobilising to
address concerns, not just about seabed mining, but about how to safeguard
ocean systems which are increasingly recognised as critical to global food
security and a healthy planet. US secretary of state John Kerry, in a video
address delivered to a high-level ocean summit hosted by the Economist and
National Geographic last week, invited leaders to a two-day summit in
Washington that will seek ways of protecting fishing stocks from
overexploitation and protecting the ocean from industrial pollution, plastic
debris and the ravages of climate change. The stakes have never been
higher, scientists said. The oceans are becoming increasingly
important to global food security. Each year more than a million
commercial fishing vessels extract more than 80m metric tonnes of fish and
seafood from the ocean. Up to three billion people rely on the sea for a large
share of their protein, especially in the developing world. Those demands are
only projected to grow. "If you look at where food security has to go between
now and 2030 we have to start looking at the ocean. We have to start looking
at the proteins coming from the sea," said Valerie Hickey, an environmental
scientist at the World Bank. That makes it all the more crucial to crack down
on illegal and unregulated fishing, which is sabotaging efforts to build
sustainable seafood industries. Two-thirds of the fish taken on the high seas
are from stocks that are already dangerous depleted far more so than in

those parts of the ocean that lie within 200 miles of the shore and are under
direct national control. Estimates of the unreported and illegal catch on the
high seas range between $10bn and $24bn a year, overwhelming
government efforts to track or apprehend the illegal fishing boats. The illegal
fishing also hurts responsible fishing crews. Figueres and Miliband suggested
fitting all the vessels operating on the high seas with transponders to track
their movements. That would single out rogue fishing vessels, making it
easier for authorities to apprehend the vessels and their catch. It's not a
perfect solution. A diplomat who has negotiated international agreements to
control illegal fishing said captains already cagey about revealing their
favourite fishing routes would simply flip off the transponders. United
Nations officials were also sceptical of the idea of a high-seas police force. "It
sounds a little bit like science fiction for me at this particular moment," said
Irina Bokova, the director general of Unesco, which manages 46 marine sites.
"What kind of police? Who is going to monitor? How is it founded? It's a very
complicated issue." But the debate was a sign of growing momentum in an
international effort to protect the oceans before it's too late. When it
comes to the ocean floor, that process is at the very early stages.
But given the multiple disasters humans have made with the ocean
so far, the stakes are high for getting it right. "There is no doubt there
are huge mineral resources to be extracted at some point in the future,"
Lodge said. "It's also true we don't know enough about the impact on
biodiversity and the impact on marine life once the mining takes place." As
the ultimate custodian, said Michael Lodge, the International Seabed
Authority had two responsibilities; making sure companies access that vast
mineral wealth in an environmentally responsible way, and then sharing it out
equitably. "We have a huge challenge to devise a fiscal regime so that
humankind as a whole gets a fair share. That's an enormous challenge, he
said. "If we end up giving it away to industry, then we have failed in our
missions." And the costs of such a failure are already becoming
painfully evident in the greater ocean.

Mining isnt sufficient inability to refine into usable


forms maintains Chinese reliance
Kennedy, President of Wings Enterprises, internationally
recognized expert on rare earths, 14

[Jim, 1/29/14, Investor Intel, Chinas Rare Earth Monopoly and its formidable
impact on U.S. National Defense, http://investorintel.com/rare-earthintel/chinas-rare-earth-monopoly-formidable-impact-u-s-national-defense/]
U.S. mining of rare earths is pointless if it isnt able to refine these resources
into value added DoD ready commodities: China maintains a global monopoly
on all refining, metallurgical, alloy and component technologie s as well as
OEM and material science facilities. U.S., Japanese, Korean and
European businesses are relocating to China to secure access to these
materials, including those used by National Defense. For instance, in
2013, GM established a new Technology Science Laboratory in China. As an

example, a Chinese corporation was granted approval to purchase the assets


of A123 battery. A123 was the centerpiece of the Obama Administrations
drive for electric vehicles. The fact that GE moved the last of its medical
imaging divisions to China provides further proof. Over the last decade nearly
every major multinational relying on REEs has moved its manufacturing
facilities, established subsidiaries and suppliers in China to gain access to
these materials in what is a labor and technology drain that is
undermining our economic future. The U.S. should establish in my opinion a
fully integrated REE refinery value chain in North America.

Mining destroys the environment toxic leaks and carbon


emissions
Sims, green tech reporter for Industry Market Trends, 13
[David, 8/22/13, Thomasnet, Rare Earths and Other Chemicals Damaging the
Environmental Value of Renewables,
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2013/08/22/rare-earths-and-other-chemicalsdamaging-the-environmental-value-of-renewables/]
Wind energy seems so clean gentle breezes quietly spinning sleek
blades, generating energy. What could be dirty about that? According to The
Data Center Journal, for one, the answer is, Plenty. See, to get those
wonderful turbines, one needs a rather large quantity of rare earth
minerals (which, despite their name, are not so rare). Mining and processing
these rare earths generates a tremendous amount of hazardous and
radioactive byproducts, the DCJ reports, which can cause tremendous
harm to both people and the environment. In fact, the environmental effects
of rare earth mining can be literally sickening . In the Mongolian town of
Baotou, the epicenter of Chinese rare earths production, the mining has
literally killed off the local farming, The Guardian reports: The soil and
groundwater are saturated with toxic substances. Five years ago (local
farmer) Li had to get rid of his sick pigs, the last survivors of a collection of
cows, horses, chickens, and goats, killed off by the toxins. The
environmental damage that rare earth production requires might be
one of the major reasons the U.S. is happy to let China do most of it,
and buy the finished product from them. The irony is rather hard to miss
proponents of wind power demand stringent environmental standards on our
domestic coal and nuclear industry, but seem strangely unconcerned at the
appalling environmental conditions necessary to supply their rare earths
habit. In fact, its rare earths which account for a great deal of the overall
carbon footprint of green energy, energy storage, and other clean
technologies. The 17 so-called rare earth minerals, e.g., the lanthanides,
scandium, and yttrium, as well as associated metals molybdenum and
tungsten, are needed in the production of items such as cell phones, other
popular consumer electronics, batteries, the electronics governing defense
systems, and missiles. Production and consumption of rare earth
minerals totaled over 100,000 metric tons in 2012, according to a
report from IHS Chemical in Houston. IHSs study estimates that from 2012 to
2017, global demand for rare earth products will grow by 7.6 percent

annually and reach more than 150,000 metric tons, with China leading
consumption growth at 8.3 percent annually. Rare Earths Not So Rare,
Actually. Contrary to the term, rare earths are actually abundant far more
so than silver and gold. Australia, the U.S., and other have nations have
sizable reserves. But world production is predominantly controlled by China.
Its an almost-ironic situation where carbon-intensive production and
mining methods are used to manufacture products designed to lower
the overall carbon footprint. Danish wind turbine producer Vestas writes
on its website, The rare earth elements are used in the magnets found in the
tower and in the permanent-magnet generators in some of the newer
models to improve the performance of turbines by making the generators
more efficient and more grid-compatible, which allows for smaller
generators requiring fewer other resources (steel, composite structural
materials, etc.) and a smaller carbon footprint. Rare Earths Not So EcoFriendly, Either. According to the online journal Ecocred, [A]n electric car
might use nearly 10 times the amount of rare earth metals as
opposed to a conventional car, which uses a little more than one
pound of rare earth materials. Research conducted at MIT noted, A
single large wind turbine (rated at about 3.5 WM) typically contains 600 kg,
or about 1,300 lbs, of rare earth metals. The grim trade-off between
obtaining power from wind and the methods required to make that
happen leave those within the industry uncomfortable. Executives in
the $1.3 billion rare-earths mining industry say that less environmentally
damaging mining is needed, given the importance of their product for green
energy technologies, The New York Times wrote back in 2009, adding that
Nicholas Curtis, the executive chairman of the Lynas Corporation of Australia,
in a speech to an industry gathering in Hong Kong said, This industry wants
to save the world. We cant do it and leave a product that is glowing in the
dark somewhere else, killing people.

Aff Answers

Prices High Now


New regulations have driven the price of rare earth
metals up
MetalMiner IndX Reports, Company that identifies
Sourcing & Trading Intelligence for Global Metals Markets,
2014
[MetalMiner IndX Reports, 01/7/14, Metal Miner, Monthly Rare Earths MMI
Falls 10.5% to 34, http://agmetalminer.com/2014/01/07/monthly-rare-earthsmmi-falls-10-5-to-34-2/, 07-19-14, TCT]
As further indication that Beijings campaign to reign in the Wild West that
was the Chinese rare earths market in the last decade, Chinas biggest
producer of rare earths, the Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare-Earth Group,
has recently acquired nine regional mining companies as part of a
government master plan to consolidate the sector.
Since 2010, it has tried to improve industry regulation, imposing tough new
production and export quotas, raising environmental standards and cracking
down on smuggling, once the source of nearly a third of the rare earths
flowing to international markets. Arguably it was the flow of illegally produced
rare earths onto the world market that decimated Western producers in the
1990s and 2000s, rather than a concerted plot by Beijing to take over the
rare earth market.
Since 2010, Beijing has sought to consolidate both refining and mining under
the control of a small number of state-owned producers. As a result, prices
have risen steadily this year as illegal exports have been curbed and legal
export prices have been raised. Nevertheless, export quotas are far from
being fully utilized as global markets have reduced their dependence on rare
earth metals and sectors like renewables and electric autos have failed to hit
earlier volume expectations.

Dysprosium and Neodymium prices are extremely high


now
GTN News, international commodity brokerage focusing
primarily on Technology Metals, 6-22-14
Heavy Rare Earth Elements are Expected to See a Rapid Growth Due to
Emerging Applications and Increasing Demand of Clean Energy - New Report
by MicroMarket Monitor, http://electio-invest.com/za/heavy-tech-metals-areexpected-to-see-a-rapid-growth-due-to-emerging-applications-and-increasingdemand-of-clean-energy-new-report-by-micromarketmonitor/#.U8sE5fldWkM, accessed 7/19/14, LLM)
Dysprosium Market:

Green Technology Industry is one of the major end-user industries to use rare
earth metals. Rare earth elements such as neodymium, praseodymium, and
dysprosium are key components in green technologies such as wind energy
and hybrid electric vehicles. Prices for rare earths had been constant for the
most part of the 1990s and the mid 2000s until the Chinese imposed a lot of
restrictions on exports in 2011. The price of some critical rare earth metals,
such as neodymium and dysprosium, increased by over 500%. Dysprosium
is a bright silvery metal and is one of the most expensive metals on this
planet. It has been marked by many countries as one of the most critical rare
earth metals needed for future use. In 2013, Asia-Pacific was the largest
market for the demand of dysprosium oxide, with a share of approximately
81.8%, and it is expected to increase at a CAGR of 15.4% over the next five
years.

Dysprosium prices have increased by over 500%


GTN News 6/22
[6/22/14, GTN, Heavy Rare Earth Elements are Expected to See a Rapid
Growth Due to Emerging Applications and Increasing Demand of Clean
Energy New Report by MicroMarket
Monitor, http://www.mygtn.tv/story/25839171/heavy-rare-earth-elementsare-expected-to-see-a-rapid-growth-due-to-emerging-applications-andincreasing-demand-of-clean-energy-new-report-by, 7/19/14, IC]
Green Technology Industry is one of the major end-user industries to use rare
earth metals. Rare earth elements such as neodymium, praseodymium, and
dysprosium are key components in green technologies such as wind energy
and hybrid electric vehicles. Prices for rare earths had been constant for the
most part of the 1990s and the mid 2000s until the Chinese imposed a lot of
restrictions on exports in 2011. The price of some critical rare earth metals,
such as neodymium and dysprosium, increased by over 500%. Dysprosium is
a bright silvery metal and is one of the most expensive metals on this planet.
It has been marked by many countries as one of the most critical rare earth
metals needed for future use. In 2013, Asia-Pacific was the largest market for
the demand of dysprosium oxide, with a share of approximately 81.8%, and it
is expected to increase at a CAGR of 15.4% over the next five years.

Dysprosium prices will rise due to Chinese governmental


actionsChina is the controlling factor
Topf, Investing News Network Senior Editor, 1/6
[Andrew, 1/16/14, Rare Earth Investing News, Is China Setting the Stage for
Higher REE Prices? http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/19390-is-chinasetting-the-stage-for-higher-ree-prices.html, 7/19/14, IC]
The question is, could Chinese consolidation cause rare earth prices to rise
again, as they did in 2011?

Its difficult to predict exactly how the consolidation will affect Chinese
production of rare earths and their prices, but its clear that the Chinese
government is sending a signal that it is prepared to tighten global supply.
The Ministry of Commerce said in December that it will trim the initial batchof
its 2014 export quota for the first time in two years, as per the Wall Street
Journal.
However as we reported back in September, lessening the import quota does
not necessarily have any effect on global rare earths supply, since most of
Chinese production is used internally, and Chinese producers have not
recently come even close to meeting their export quotas.
Perhaps of greater significance, is the governments intention to lessen the
number of rare-earth players in order to further centralize the industry. East
Asia Forum reported that in 2010 there were 32 companies with a license to
export rare earths, and while a firm number in 2014 is hard to attain, WSJ
reports that the rare earths industry in Northern China is dominated by
Baotou, and in Southern China, China Minmetals Corporation is the main
producer, with other main players including Aluminum Corporation of China
Limited and China Non-Ferrous Metal Mining.
Whether the new group set up to coordinate production quotas, as described
above, will be able to properly police the industry including tackling the
endemic smuggling problem, is anyones guess, but what we can say is that
the governments attempts this year to crack down on illegal rare earth
mining have yielded higher prices. In June, the prices of terbium,
praseodymium/neodymium and dysprosium, all rose due to a crackdown on
illegal rare earth concentrate in Jiangxi province.
A wildcard in the prices game is how non-Chinese production will play into the
prices of rare earth metals and oxides. Quoting Roskill Consulting Group,
Shanghai Metals Market reported in October that non-Chinese rare earths,
particularly light rare earths, are expected to increase 27 percent a year to
101,100 tonnes of rare earth oxides by 2020.
However for the more valuable heavy rare earths, most of which are
produced in China, the Chinese are expected to continue dominating the
market. According to Roskill, Chinese HREE production is expected to grow
from 2013 to 2015 despite illegal producers being closed down.
[I]n the rest of the world it is unlikely that operations will make any
significant contribution to HREE supply before 2017. Potential producers
continue to be afflicted by low rare earth prices and difficulty in obtaining
finance in the current climate. This means that a number of projects have
either been being pushed back or are being reevaluated, according to
Shanghai Metals Market.

On the other hand, some rare earth market observers are predicting a
rebound in the sector, as end users tire of the Chinese monopoly and look to
Western producers for a more steady supply stream.
Do not be surprised to see the beaten down rare earth miners propel once
again to the front pages of the mainstream media. End users will no longer
rely on China and the highest quality assets are already gaining attention
from the Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Japanese and Koreans, wrote
stock analyst Jeb Handwerger in his recent commentary Ready for Rare
Earth Rebound in 2014?
Among Handwergers reasons for optimism: a perceived slight by Japans
Prime Minister Abe against the Chinese for visiting the Yasukuni war shrine;
and growing tensions between China and Japan over a set of disputed island
in the South China Sea. Readers will recall that it was a 2010 collision
between a Chinese fishing trawler and a Japanese Coast Guard patrol boat
near the islands that led to China halting exports of rare earths to Japan, and
as Handwerger describes it, a mania in the rare earth mining sector in the
West as end users realized the need for a secure supply for these critical
elements needed for high tech industries such as telecommunications,
defense and the automobile sector.
The bottom line for investors?
Dont give up on rare earths as an investment thesis and watch events
closely in China that could presage a price hike leading to a much-needed
uptick in REE equities.

Neodymium prices are skyrocketing in the squo


CED, Consumer Electronics Daily, 11 (Aug 31, Speaker Makers
Say Surging Neodymium Prices
From China At Crisis Stage, http://www.warren-news.com/neodymium.html,
7-19-14, Tang)
In Harman International's fiscal Q4 earnings call earlier this month (CED Aug
11 p5), CEO Dinesh Paliwal cited raw components price increases of 1,000
percent amounting to $85 million for the company, which is putting "anyone
buying neodymium in a tough spot" and "lucky to get allocation." With
Harman's scale the company is able to guarantee allocation for now, but the
company will have to re-tool and make adjustments, he said. Harman is a top
supplier in automotive, home and professional speakers. " It's a serious
situation," Robert Wills, president of InterSource OEM, told Consumer
Electronics Daily. Wills buys neodymium magnets from factories in China and
builds speakers in China for companies that include Alpine, Atlantic
Technology and Sonance. What started as a manageable 10 percent rise in
neodymium prices jumped, and kept jumping, from 100 to 200 to 500 to
1,000 percent, Wills said. "It's out of control," he said. " The rising cost of neo

magnets is indeed a problem," said Doug Henderson, vice president-sales


and marketing for B&W Group USA. Henderson cited 400 percent price
increases for B&W that are forcing the company to review magnet design to
try to reduce the mass of neodymium it uses through lighter tweeter domes
and tighter voice coil gaps. But because of the benefits of the neodymium
magnet exceptional strength for its size, enabling designers to fit speakers
into the smaller cabinets that consumers demand "it is very hard to move
away from it without major changes which would be difficult to implement,"
Henderson said. "So we are focused on lots of little changes to use less
magnet material without compromising performance," he said. The problem
is hitting everyone in the speaker market who needs to trade off size and
weight, and that runs the gamut from automotive to home-theater-in-a-box to
in-wall speakers. Neodymium is "particularly important" in automotive
applications because of the strong influence weight has on gas mileage, said
Ken Kantor, a speaker designer for NHT and others and now president of ZT
Amplifiers in Berkeley, Calif. "There's a remarkable financial benefit to remove
pounds from a car," Kantor said, citing figures from his days "six or seven
years ago" as an automotive speaker designer when Ford paid "something
like $4-$4.50 a pound" for a car to be built. Pulling a single pound from a
vehicle's weight has an impact, especially at a time when "mileage sells," he
said. Using a neodymium tweeter in a vehicle enables car makers to "halve
the weight of a speaker" and charge a premium for their designs, he said.
Automotive speaker technology tends to drive speaker manufacturing in
general and neodymium has become widely used in automotive tweeters, he
said.

Prices are highproduction suspensions and falling


exports
Mineweb 2013
[Shivom Seth, 6/27/13, Mineweb, Rare earth prices on the rise,
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/en/mineweb-industrial-metalsminerals-old?oid=195948&sn=Detail, 7/19/14, IC]
Even as new measures to consolidate the rare earth industry in China are on
the cards, prices for the 17 elements have jumped 10% over the past two
weeks. The report has indicated that prices of praseodymium-neodymium
oxide stood at around $43,000 (270,000 yuan) per tonne on June 25, about
$3,237 (20,000 yuan) higher than the price recorded two weeks ago,
according to the Shanghai Securities Journal.
Prices of dysprosium oxide and terbium oxide, on the other hand, were
quoting at $218,571 (1.35 million yuan) and $420,989 (2.6 million yuan) per
tonne respectively on June 25, each higher by $3,237 as compared to a
fortnight ago.
The average price of rare earths in 2012 fell close to 40% compared to 2011.
To stop the price fall, firms across China adopted strategies such as

production suspensions. However, falling demand in downstream sectors and


illegal mining curbed the effects of such strategies.
Exports too were hit last year, with China's rare earth exports plummeting
71% given the several international trade suits.

Predictive evidence indicates that Dysprosium prices will


increase
Topf, Investing News Network Senior Editor, 2013
[Andrew, 5/30/13, Rare Earth Investing News, Have Rare Earth Prices
Bottomed Out? http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/10579-have-rare-earthprices-bottomed-out.html, 7/19/14, IC]
Rare earth producers may have nothing but blue sky to look forward to after
several months of gloomy weather, metaphorically speaking, regarding
stagnant rare earth oxide (REO) prices.
A report this week by Morgan Stanley states that demand for REOs has
troughed, suggesting prices could start to come back up following another 12
percent cross-the-board price decline in May. The caveat, however, is that
more supply from Molycorp (NYSE:MCP) and Lynas Corporation (ASX:LYC) in
the second half of this year could put more downward pressure on prices,
according to a Morgan Stanley analyst quoted by StreetInsider.com.
The firms assessment is encouraging news at least in the short term for rare
earth element (REE) producers that have seen a continued weak pricing
environment. MetalMiners monthly Rare Earths MMI fell three points in May,
to 39 points, a 7.1-percent decrease from 42 in April. Rare earths were the
worst performing of any of MetalMiners MMI indices.
Bottom of Form
MetalMiner managing editor Lisa Reisman wrote on Seeking Alpha that the
index was pulled down by falling prices of terbium, europium and dysprosium
oxides. Dysprosium, used in lasers, magnets and electronics, was worst hit
with a 17.3 percent price decline. However, she also noted that the prices of
eight other metals are up, including yttrium, yttria, terbium metal, samarium
oxide, praseodymium oxide, neodymium oxide, neodymium and lanthanum
oxide.
There are indeed encouraging signs that the two-year rout in rare earths
prices could soon be coming to an end. Metal-Pages reported on Wednesday
that industry sources are starting to see interest from high-net-worth
investors who think that prices are close to bottoming out.
Theres definitely a speculative interest in rare earths, wrote Metal-Pages,
quoting a European trader. Weve had a number of enquiries recently from
investors.

Some of them have been talking of investments of up to $0.5-1.0 million,


said the trader, noting that six months ago there was no investor interest.
Metal-Pages also said that some traders are restocking cerium, lanthanum
and erbium oxides in hopes that prices have bottomed.

Price increases and supply increases are both inevitable


Bruno, Holds a BA, MA. He has worked for the United
Nations in Libya and specialized in Middle Eastern,
African, and South American affairs, 14
(Alessandro, Northern Minerals on path to becoming a leading dysprosium
producer by 2016, http://investorintel.com/rare-earth-intel/northernminerals-path-becoming-leading-dysprosium-producer-2016/, Accessed:
7/19/14) //AMM
Browns Range could be the first significant world
producer of high value dysprosium outside of China . Northern says production
could begin as early as the latter half of 2016. This means that the Browns Range project offers
The PFS confirms that, says Northern,

excellent economics because, apart from the presence of dysprosium (which commands premium prices),

the PFS was based on a conventional mining operation involving both open
cut and underground operations , and a relatively simple processing flow-sheet with all
infrastructure located on site. The PFS also identified a base production of 279 MT of
dysprosium per year and a total of 3,200 MT of mixed rare earth oxides . Such is
the concentration of heavies in the mix that Northern could survive on the production of
dysprosium alone. Northern also noted that it has faced little difficulty in extracting
the xenotime (the mineral containing the rare earths) from the host rock. Having completed the feasibility
study, therefore,

Northern has also maintained a degree of financial


independence, managing to keep control of funding mechanisms as it moves to secure the capital
to bring the project to production stage. The current resource estimate for the Browns
Range project now stands at 4.13-million tons of at 0.68% (or 28,084 tons TREO).
Due to the global economic downturn, the rare earths market was marked by lower demand in the past
two years, resulting in a price consolidation and a determined effort by the Chinese government to cut

Chinas rare earth


policy has also established the increasing buildup of strategic reserves by the
Chinese government including terbium oxide, neodymium, gadolinium,
dysprosium and praseodymium.
down on price distorting mechanisms as black market rare earths trading.

Heavy rare earths are mainly used in green technologies (electric transportation, wind turbines, energy
saving lamps) and until somebody starts to produce heavy rare earths outside of China, the supply
situation with these rare earths is still at risk. Meanwhile,

technology is not standing still and


innovations requiring rare earths are launched every day . Recently, General
Electric announced that it has developed a new and very efficient generation
of refrigerators that require magnets based on a gadolinium alloy. Clearly, given
the size of the market for refrigerators and the rising costs of electricity worldwide , this will boost
global demand for gadolinium. In the automotive sector, if Tesla succeeds in expanding
its annual production from 22,500 to 500,000 cars a year, there will be a huge impact
on demand for such metals as copper, lithium and rare earths. As the Chinese government
increases reserves stocks, it is reasonable to expect that prices for rare earths in

China will rise in the coming weeks or months. Chinas plan to introduce a new
environmental tax on rare earths from 2015 is also likely to increase prices
while, Lynas and Molycorp are not expected to bring any relief to rising heavy rare earths demand. All of
this is good news for those companies like Northern Minerals, focusing on
heavy rare earths and taking the necessary technical and financial steps to
head toward production just as the rare earths market should reach new
peaks.

Demand for REMs is high, and supply is increasing


Gee, NYT Writer, 14
[Alastair, May 2014, THE RARE-EARTHS ROLLER COASTER,
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/the-rare-earthsroller-coaster.html, 7/19/14, TYBG]
Most of the worlds rare earths are mined in China. In recent years, amid
fears that Chinas control of the market could jeopardize Western strategic
interests, firms such as Elissa pursued deposits elsewherein the United
States, Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, Vietnam, Greenland, Australia, and other
countries. A boom was on. A geologist would pick up a rock, lick it, and say,
Oh, Ive got rare earths, and suddenly youve got a rare-earths company,
Gareth Hatch, a co-founder of the market-intelligence firm Technology Metals
Research, said. The industry acquired an air of glamour, thanks to the
futuristic uses of the metals, and a moniker suggestive of preciousness.
In fact, the rare earthsthere are seventeen, and they have baroque names
like dysprosium and gadoliniumare not all that rare. Most are more common
in the earths crust than gold or silver, and they look like ordinary metals. But
unlike gold and silver, they are not readily found in minable concentrations;
their name derives from the difficulty of separating them out from one
another. Nearly all the rare earths had been discovered by the end of the
nineteenth century, but their uses were few. A shift began in 1949, when
uranium prospectors carrying a Geiger counter hit upon an unusually
radioactive zone in the desert, about sixty miles from Las Vegas. They found
thorium, a radioactive metal often contained in rare-earth deposits. In 1950
and 1951, a firm called the Molybdenum Corporation of America (later
renamed Molycorp) bought the rights in the area and soon opened a mine
called Mountain Pass. In the coming decades, Mountain Pass would provide a
significant portion of the rare earths utilized around the world.
With advances in technology, applications for rare earths proliferated. In the
sixties, electronics manufacturers discovered that europium and yttrium
could produce the red hue in TV sets. The oil industry realized that rare
earths could help refine petroleum. Today, magnets that combine neodymium
with iron and boron, making them exceptionally strong, are found in wind
turbines, electric motors, and headphones. Dysprosium is used in military
guidance-and-control systems, and lanthanum in Toyota Prius battery packs.

Plenty of rare earth metals US private companies


Market Watch, 14
[Wall Street Journal Economic Report, U.S. Rare Earths Announces Extraction
Of Critical Rare Earths In Montana COMPANY PLANS TO EXPAND IN 2014
BASED ON ITS DRILLING SUCCESS, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/usrare-earths-announces-extraction-of-critical-rare-earths-in-montana-2014-0109, TYBG]
U.S. Rare Earths, Inc., UREE 0.00% , a U.S. based domestic rare earths
exploration company with more than 25,000 acres of mining claims in Idaho,
Montana, and Colorado, announced today that it is beginning 2014 having
successfully extracted the first critical rare earths in the continental U.S. The
deposits come from the company's Last Chance Property in Montana.
Preliminary metallurgical leach testing was completed by SGS of Ontario,
Canada. The leach test results demonstrated a 79 percent recovery of Critical
Rare Earths.
Four different leaching approaches were used to extract rare earth metals
into a solution and warrant further optimization. The initial results indicate
the technical feasibility of extracting much needed Critical Rare Earths for
U.S. consumption from USRE's Last Chance Property.

Wind Turbine Demand Increasing


Wind turbine demand is increasing that causes
shortages
Frontier Rare Earths, mineral exploration and
development company, 13

[1/7/13, Frontier Rare Earths, IHS forecasts shortages for some rare earth
elements in new study, http://www.frontierrareearths.com/mediacover/blog/82-ihs-forecasts-shortages-for-some-rare-earth-elements-in-newstudy, accessed 7/19/14, TYBG]
According to a new IHS Chemical (NYSE: IHS) global market research report, a
growing global dependence upon a multitude of diverse technologies
including computers, smart phones, TVs, lighting systems, hybrid
automobiles, life-saving medical technologies, offshore wind turbines,
petroleum refining, microwave communications and laser-guided missile
defense systems -- has left manufacturers and countries vulnerable to the
availability and uninterrupted supply (largely from China) of some key
elements used to produce these technologies, called rare earths
In the report, the IHS Chemical CEH Rare Earth Minerals and Products Report,
production and consumption of these industrial minerals in 2012 was more
than 100 thousand metric tons (KMT). During the study period of 2012 to
2017, IHS estimates average global demand for rare earth products will grow
by 7.6 percent annually, reaching more than 150 KMT of consumption, with
China leading consumption growth at 8.3 percent annually.
Rare earths are a set of 17 chemical elements in the periodic table, more
specifically, the 15 lanthanides, plus scandium and yttrium, which share
similar chemical properties. Despite their name, rare earth elements are fairly
abundant. The challenge for manufacturers and countries dependent upon
these minerals though, is two-fold. First, they generally occur naturally as
mixtures of various rare earth elements and are not always found in
economically exploitable concentrations. Second, the minerals must be
mined, then concentrated into rare earth oxides, and finally, separated into
individual rare earth elements and compounds.
A major proportion of the worlds rare earth reserves are located in China
the production and consumption of rare earths is dominated by China. China
alone accounted for more than 85 percent of world rare earth production in
2012, and consumed approximately 70 percent. In terms of consumption,
Japan followed with approximately 15 percent of world production in 2012,
but has no domestic rare earth reserves. This imbalance creates an
uncomfortable dependence for Japan and other countries requiring both a
steady supply of these elements and pricing stability.
Recently, these issues came to a head in a dramatic way according to
Samantha Wietlisbach, principal analyst of specialty chemicals at IHS
Chemical and the reports lead author. Supply disruptions over the last few
years interrupted Japanese automotive and electronics industry production

and sent shock waves through the global manufacturing industries that rely
on rare earths, Wietlisbach said
Other governments have realized their national security interests and
industrial sectors were vulnerable, since China dominates the market in terms
of both supply and demand, she said. The supply shortages also resulted in
unprecedented price spikes, impacting global consumers of these materials.
It was a wake-up call to address diversity of supply and to explore possible
substitutions. This, in turn, has led to many new mining projects being
announced globally, with rare earth ore as the main product.
The various markets for rare earths, as mixtures, individual elements or
compounds, have developed in a very sporadic fashion and are, essentially, a
two-tiered system, Wietlisbach said. New markets are strong and growing for
individual, specialized and high-purity rare earths, particularly for
neodymium, which is used in high-performance magnets (permanent magnet
motors or PMs) for hybrid vehicles, offshore turbines and defense guidance
systems. While the markets for mixed rare earth oxides (REOs), which
formerly constituted the bulk of the business, show stagnant demand.
A large share of the worlds rare earth concentrate supply is produced as a
by-product or co-product of other mining activities. Minerals containing rare
earths are currently produced in seven countries/regionsChina, the CIS, the
U.S., Australia, India, Brazil and Malaysia. Lanthanum and cerium accounted
for nearly 60 percent of world consumption of rare earth oxides in 2012,
followed by neodymium, yttrium and praseodymium. The other elements
accounted for less than 5 percent of total rare earth consumption worldwide.
Lanthanum is used for rechargeable batteries in hybrid cars, fluid catalytic
cracking catalysts (FCC) used to produce gasoline efficiently, as a glass
additive for camera and telescope lenses, and in lasers and x-ray films to
reduce the amount of radiation exposure for patients. Neodymiums most
important use is in high power magnets, which are found in hybrid vehicle
motors, wind turbines, low voltage electric motors, but also mobile phones,
microphones, speakers and headphones. Yttrium is critical for television
screens and monitors, as well as in fluorescent lights to produce brilliant
white light. It is also used in microwave communications, in lasers, and as
transmitters and transducers of acoustic energy. Praseodymium is used
widely in metallurgical applications, especially high-strength magnesium
alloys used in aircraft engines.
Said Wietlisbach, There is a distinct imbalance between the consumption of
some rare earth oxides compared to the amount produced. In 2012, there
was an excess of cerium and dysprosium produced, but for lanthanum,
praseodymium, neodymium and europium, demand exceeded supply.
However, with that being said, the expected growth in demand for offshore
wind turbines during the next five to 10 years means the amount of
dysprosium and other less-abundant rare earths used to produce PM motors,
are expected to be in short supply.

Demand Increasing Now


REMs like Dysprosium will become more expensive and
rare
Frearson, Business Reporter, 14
[Joanne, 6/26, Business Reporter, Rocking all over the world: the rare earth
metals market, http://business-reporter.co.uk/2014/06/rocking-all-over-theworld-the-rare-earth-metals-market/, 7/19/14, BS]
The demand for heavy rare earth elements is likely to rise as the use of green
energy technologies increases and supply remains tight while some light rare earths
are moving to a position of oversupply. According to a report by research firm MarketsandMarkets, the
demand for rare earth metals is estimated to reach 192,000 tons by 2018.
Demand is strongest in the Asia-Pacific region, with China accounting for 60 per cent of global rare earth

light rare earths such as lanthanum (used to make nickel metal


and cerium (used to polish glass, metal and
gemstones) capture around 62 per cent of the market share, they are more
abundant in the earths surface, and it is the heavier rare earths which will
see their value increase. Rarer heavier earths which will be in demand include
yttrium, europium and terbium used in energy efficient fluorescent lamps and bulbs, erbium
which is used in lasers for medical and dental use, and dysprosium, used in the
manufacture of neodymium-iron-boron high-strength permanent magnets .
consumption. Although

hydride batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles)

Rocking all over the world 2Paul Lusty, team leader of Ore Deposits and Commodities at the British
Geological Survey, says: Heavy

rare earth elements are more expensive than the


light rare earths because of their geological availability and market demand
for them, which is generally expanding because of specialist applications in
new technologies. There is limited scope for rare earths to be substituted for other materials in
these applications and the heavy rare earth elements are essential for their performance. Projections

supply will be problematic for yttrium, europium and terbium and may
be challenging for other important elements such as erbium and dysprosium .
They are more likely to sustain higher prices or see some price increase going forward. For elements
like terbium the supply situation is going to continue to be quite tight over
the next few years, probably at least up to 2016 or the end of the decade until we see some
suggest

significant heavy rare earth producing operations outside China actually coming online. The real major
growth areas are associated with green or clean energy technologies. Many of the rare earths have
important magnetic characteristics. They are used in industrial motors, hard disk drives, hybrid electric
vehicles and wind turbines. Analysts are predicting increased demand for magnets which use rare earths.

China has the monopoly in the rare earth market, but the
emergence of new players in the industry is likely to have an impact on
prices. China accounts for 85 per cent plus of global rare earth production, though Lusty says that new
At the moment,

operations in the US and Australia are starting to make an impact on Chinas share of the market for some
elements. Companies such as US-based Molycorp and Australian firm Lynas have both started operating
their rare earth mines which will see production of rare earth metals increase substantially. But Lusty says

changes will take some time to affect the industrys strategy. In terms of the
it takes a long time for the mining industry to respond to changes in
demand, he says. It is probably going to be at least another 10 years before
we see a diverse supply base outside China. The processing of rare earth is complex. It is
such

future

unlikely that more than a handful of those projects that are currently being explored will reach the
commercialisation stage and become producing mines.

Demand for REMs is increasing and the necessary


supplies are dwindling price spikes are inevitable
Jones, writer Yale Environment 360, 13
[Nicola, 11/18/13, Yale Environment 360, A Scarcity of Rare Metals Is
Hindering Green Technologies,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_te
chnologies/2711/, accessed 7/19/14, TYBG]
With the global push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, its ironic that
several energy- or resource-saving technologies arent being used to the
fullest simply because we dont have enough raw materials to make them.
For example, says Alex King, director of the new Critical Materials Institute,
every wind farm has a few turbines standing idle because their fragile
gearboxes have broken down. They can be fixed, of course, but that takes
time and meanwhile wind power isnt being gathered. Now you can make a
more reliable wind turbine that doesnt need a gearbox at all, King points out,
but you need a truckload of so-called "rare earth" metals to do it, and there
simply isnt the supply. Likewise, we could all be using next-generation
fluorescent light bulbs that are twice as efficient as the current standard. But
when the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) tried to make that switch in 2009,
companies like General Electric cried foul: they wouldnt be able to get hold
of enough rare earths to make the new bulbs.
The move toward new and better technologies from smart phones to
electric cars means an ever-increasing demand for exotic metals that are
scarce thanks to both geology and politics. Thin, cheap solar panels need
tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earths crust,
making it three times rarer than gold. High-performance batteries need
lithium, which is only easily extracted from briny pools in the Andes.
Platinum, needed as a catalyst in fuel cells that turn hydrogen into energy,
comes almost exclusively from South Africa.
Researchers and industry workers alike woke with a shock to the problems
caused by these dodgy supply chains in 2011, when the average price of
"rare earths" including terbium and europium, used in fluorescent bulbs;
and neodymium, used in the powerful magnets that help to drive wind
turbines and electric engines shot up by as much as 750 percent in a year.
The problem was that China, which controlled 97 percent of global rare earth
production, had clamped down on trade. A solution was brokered and the
price shock faded, but the threat of future supply problems for rare earths
and other so-called "critical elements" still looms.

Demand is rising and projected to stay the course


shortages are coming
Admiral Metals, metal manufacturer, 13

[2/27/13, Admiral Metals, Rare Earth Metals Rare or in Short Supply?,


http://www.admiralmetals.com/admiral-metals/rare-earth-metals-part-1/,
accessed 7/19/14, TYBG]

The process of bringing rare earth metals to an exploitable form includes


mining (mostly from bastnaesite mineral deposits), separation, refining
oxides into metals, fabricating alloys, and final manufacturing into various
components. Until the late 1980s, the US dominated global production
mostly through mining in Mountain Pass, California. In the past 20 years, US
production has slowed due to environmental and safety concerns, the
resulting regulations and restrictions causing prohibitive mining costs. Now,
US development is improving, but ramping up mine production is expensive
and time-consuming (about $500 million to $1 billion to start a mine which
could take 8 years).
The US slow down left room for China to become the dominant player in all
aspects of the rare earth supply chain. In recent years, China has actively
expanded its rare earth metals reserves and tends to manage its exports with
little transparency. A Reuters report from the US Geological Survey estimated
that China holds about half the worlds rare earth metals reserve and
produces more than 95% of the worlds supply.
At the same time, demand has been growing annually. Currently, worldwide
demand is at about 134,000 tons each year while production is only at
124,000 tons. The rest comes from above ground reserves. If this trend were
to continue, by 2014, demand could reach close to 200,000 tons. Supply
shortages are expected in those countries without reserves or alternative
technologies.

Ocean Mining Solves - Generic


Ocean floor mining solves REM scarcity extraction is
feasible and low cost
Green, writer for Robotics Business Review, 14
[Tom, 6/28/14, Robotics Business Review, Deep Sea Dive for Rare Earth
Elements,
http://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/article/deep_sea_dive_for_rare_earth_
elements]
With over 30 percent of the worlds known REE deposits and by far the
cheapest extraction process, China supplies 95 percent of the worlds REEs.
However, China, with a rising middle class and booming domestic market, is
steadily reducing export quotas. The Word Trade Organization (WTO), of
which China is a member, ruled in March of 2014 that China was hoarding
and taking unfair advantage of the market. That decision was two years in
coming, and now China will appeal the current WTO judgment, which might
take another two years. Byron Capital analyst, John Hykawy said Ive heard
from so many critical materials buyers at large corporations that they want
security of supply. And security of supply to them means avoiding Chinese
supply at all costs because they got fooled once. They dont want to get
fooled again. 2- to 3-miles down: REEs not alone on the seabed In the
meantime, REEs are again getting to be in short supply, and with demand
forecast to progressively increase, the world drastically needs new
suppliers of REEs. The London Metal Exchange lists neodymium at $800
Kg; terbium metal at 1,900 Kg; and scandium metal 15,500.00 per
Kg. Relatively inexpensive is lanthanum at $13 Kg. However, the
battery in a Toyota Prius hybrid requires more than 10kg of
lanthanum. Now multiply $130 times millions of Toyotas and the
need for lots of lanthanum comes into focus. Stephen Ball, chief
executive officer of Lockheed Martin UK, owner of UK Seabed Resources, told
the BBC Its another source of minerals theres a shortage and theres
difficulty getting access, so theres strategic value for the UK government in
getting an opportunity to get these minerals. UK Seabed Resources says
surveys have revealed huge numbers of nodules small lumps of rock rich in
valuable metals lying on the ocean floor south of Hawaii and west of
Mexico. The exact value of these resources is impossible to calculate
reliably, but a leading UN official described the scale of mineral
deposits in the worlds oceans as staggering with several hundred
years worth of cobalt and nickel. These tennis-ball sized nodules,
found approximately four kilometers (2.5 miles) beneath the oceans
surface, can provide millions of tons of copper, nickel, cobalt and
manganese, as well as rare earth minerals, that are used in the
construction, aerospace, alternative energy, and communications
industries, among others, reports Lockheed Martin. The Japan
Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and the University
of Tokyo confirmed the discovery of a huge new deposit on the

Pacific seabed, claiming the deposit can be mined at very low cost and
will be able to produce materials that are 20 to 30 times more concentrated
than those currently being mined in China.

Ocean mining completely ends the Chinese monopoly


deposits are massive, highly concentrated, and easily
extractable
Worstall, Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, 13

[Tim, 3/25/13, Forbes, Japan's New Rare Earth Discovery: That's China's
Monopoly Entirely Blown,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/25/japans-new-rare-earthdiscovery-thats-chinas-monopoly-entirely-blown/]
Japan has just announced another vast discovery of rare earth
bearing materials on the ocean floor. This does rather put an end

to any possibility of China having a long term lock on the


supply of these vital elements. Japan is celebrating the find of an
astronomically high level of rare earth deposits at the
bottom of the Pacific Ocean, a discovery which will further
undermine Chinas failing attempts to control the global supply of
the substances. You might recall a couple of years back there was a similar
Japanese claim. There it was that the plumes from underwater volcanoes
were rich in rare earths. This makes good sense as rare earths are
constituents of pegmatites, pegmatites come from volcanoes. Thus, given
that these are underwater volcanoes, instead of the REs becoming part of the
rock theyre floating off through the water as dust. Further, the floating
through the water part does some of the separation of the REs from the other
components (as surface water does some of the sorting of alluvial deposits as
they weather out of the same types of rocks) so there were areas of sediment
that were RE rich. This finding is a little different. Almost certainly from the
same general source: but now the RE rich material is in nodules just

under the silt of the ocean floor. This makes it all rather
easier to raise from 5,000 metres down. There is another issue here.
Rare earths are usually divided into two sets the lights and the
heavies. The new land based mines (Molycorp, Lynas and so on) dont have
much of the heavies in them. So despite our having more REs to play with,
China still pretty much has a lock on the heavy ones, the terbium,
dysprosium and europium, that we would really like to have more of. This
Japanese find is highly enriched in the heavies. Which rather
neatly seems to solve that problem. This isnt something thats going to go
into production this year of course. Id be amazed if it does so this decade in
fact. But it does lift the possibility of China retaining a production
monopoly.

Ocean Mining Solves - China Monopoly


US mining will undermine Chinas REM monopoly
Savitz, Forbes staff writer, 12
[Eric, 6/8/12, Forbes Rare Earth Minerals: And End To Chinas Monopoly,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/06/08/rare-earth-minerals-anend-to-chinas-monopoly-is-in-sight/]
North America is finally waking up to the consequences of a continued
Chinese monopoly and has quietly invested significant money and
resources into mining rare earth minerals domestically. In fact, there
are currently 35 rare earth projects at various stages in development
outside of China (according to advisory firm Technology Metals Research).
The most mature operation is right here in North America Molycorps
Mountain Pass, California mine. Several other mines are also progressing
nicely in the Northeast Corridor of Canada. A major shift is taking place, and
its possible that 15-20 percent of rare earth minerals could be mined
outside of China by the end of 2020. In addition to loosening Chinas
stranglehold on the market, even a 10 percent shift in market share would
have a positive ripple effect on the U.S. manufacturing and technology
sectors: An increase in U.S. high-tech production could spur the revival of
other domestic manufacturing. Many U.S. companies are already relocating
portions of their high-tech production from China to North America for cost
savings mainly due to high logistics and rising labor costs. Add to that the
multitude of unpredictable global supply risks like we saw with the Japan
earthquake and tsunami a new and steady source of domestic rare earth
minerals could accelerate a U.S. manufacturing revival . New electronics
suppliers will push product innovation. Theres been a woeful lack of
innovation coming out of China and Japan over the past few years. Instead of
new genre-defining products, the most highly sought-after products we see
every holiday season tend to be the latest and greatest third and fourth
generations of already existing products. Without major competition from
new suppliers trying to make a splash in the tech scene, the big boys are able
to maintain the status quo. Increased competition will create more products
and lower prices: a welcome win for innovation-starved consumers.
More consumer-friendly prices. An upswing in U.S. high-tech manufacturing
also has the potential to drive product prices down. The obvious reasons:
logistic costs and supply risk. Beyond saving on transportation costs, U.S.
companies will be able to strike longer deals with suppliers thus locking in
better terms. Domestic sources must operate under U.S. business
regulations, making them a more predictable and reliable source of supplies.

Non-unique WTO Ruling


Chinas industry will collapse and other countries solve
shortages WTO ruling
Reuters, 14
[3/26/14, Reuters, Rare earth prices to fade as mines up output, China loses
dispute, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/rareearths-pricesidUSL5N0MN2MG20140326, accessed 7/18/14, TYBG]
LONDON, March 26 (Reuters) - Rare earth elements will drop further in value
this year as new mines boost output and after China lost a trade dispute over
its export controls, while demand in high-tech products disappoints.
Prices of the 17 elements used in technologies such as smartphones and
electric cars have mostly been stuck in tight ranges after skyrocketing and
then tumbling in 2010-2011.
A few rare earths attempted a rally late last year, but remain well below the
spike three years ago after China clamped down on exports.
The world's second-biggest economy, which not only produces 90 percent of
global rare earths but is the largest consumer, lost a dispute at the World
Trade Organization on Wednesday.
A consultant said a price war could break out after the United States,
European Union and Japan won their case over export restrictions they said
gave Chinese companies an unfair competitive edge in key high-tech sectors.
"If the recent WTO ruling leads to a softening of China's rare earth industry
policy measures, the nation's only tangible defence becomes competing
head-to-head on price with emerging global producers," said Ryan Castilloux,
founding director at Adamas Intelligence in Sudbury, Ontario.
Investors are already worried about excess supply as U.S. mining group
Molycorp Inc and Australia's Lynas Corp boost output at their new mines.
"We still remain concerned about the likely downward pressure on rare earth
pricing if Molycorp achieves its production guidance by the fourth quarter of
this year," analyst Michael Gambardella at JPMorgan said.
"We continue to believe that all rare earth prices will move meaningfully
lower as Molycorp and Lynas ramp to just their full Phase 1 capacities," he
said in a note.
Molycorp aims to boost output to 20,000 tonnes a year, after producing about
1,000 tonnes of rare earth oxides in the fourth quarter.
"If we start seeing new mines being constructed outside of China and
demand does not grow to absorb this new production, then China may see its
REE (rare earth element) industry, at least the upstream end of it, under
threat, leading it to undercut competitors on price," Castilloux said.
China has been struggling to control illegal mining and smuggling in its rare
earth industry despite a two-year campaign to consolidate output in the
hands of big state-owned miners.

China Monopoly Collapsing


Chinese rare earth metal monopoly is collapsing
Topf, editor at Rare Earth Investing News, 13

(Andrew Topf editor at MINING.com Investing News Rare Earths Outlook:


Prices to Rise, Western Producers Cutting Into Chinese Monopoly December
23, 2013 http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/19313-rare-earths-outlookprices-to-rise-western-producers-cutting-into-chinese-monopoly.html)
New suppliers like Molycorp and Lynas are already significant-enough
producers to influence the price (Molycorp is running at about 7,000
tons per year, compared to Chinas current run rate of some 20,000+ tons
per year), and with ongoing investment likely to raise this figure, Chinas
days of having a stranglehold on the market are, if not over, then at least
severely limited. Of course, this is all dependent on Molycorp and Lynas
reaching stated production goals. Both companies have faced roadblocks in
this respect, with Molycorp falling behind its stated 15,000 tonnes per year
target, and Lynas also admitting output trouble. Referring specifically to
magnets, a large market for rare earth metals, Molycorp spokesman Jim Sims
told Bloomberg that Molycorp and Lynas are increasing their production so
theres a growing diversity of supply for those rare-earth materials that
eventually go into the magnets. The article also said that while
China is the primary source of REEs for the production of magnets, a U.S.Japanese joint venture has developed the technology for producing these
magnets and is building a facility in Japan, referring to a JV signed in
2010 between Molycorp and Hitachi (TYO:6501) to produce neodymium-ironboron (NdFeB) alloys and magnets. The news from the Pentagon came a
few months after Russia announced that it would spend $1 billion to
produce rare earths in a bid to reduce its dependence on China. The funds
would come from Rostec and and investment company IST Group, which
agreed to plow a billion dollars into Russian rare earths production by 2018.
Then theres the step that Greenland took in October of lifting its moratorium
on rare earth and uranium mining. The bans removal is likely to attract
foreign investors to the Arctic landmass in search of its prized rare earth
deposits. While that could still be a ways off, there is already a sign that
Chinese rare earths dominance is under threat. An article last Friday in
Xinhua, the Chinese state-owned news agency, said that Chinese rare
rare earth miners are being forced to phase out excessive production
capacity as overseas suppliers chip away at their dominance in the
global market.

Chinas monopoly is collapsing now increased


international production and prices.
Investor Intel, investing news source, 13
[12/23/13, Invester Intel Breaking Chinas stranglehold on the Rare Earths
Industry, http://investorintel.com/rare-earth-intel/breaking-chinasstranglehold-rare-earths-industry/]

There is light on the horizon. Like everything in life, nothing stands still. And
the REE industry is no different. The importance of rare earths has only
grown as emerging markets increase their demand for technologies
made with it, as does the renewable energy industry. When it comes to
Chinas monopoly of rare earths, it appears we are approaching the
beginning of the end. As the Chinese REE stranglehold is reduced through
increased production from the only two non-Chinese sources currently, and
Chinese rare earth prices rise due to continued efforts by the Chinese
government to address environmental concerns and stop illegal rare earth
mining, rare earth investors could potentially see higher prices in 2014,
which in turn would translate into higher stock prices for REE companies .
According to the Pentagons latest assessment of the rare earths industry,
Chinas virtual monopoly on the industry has been disrupted. In its annual
report to Congress (dated October 2013, but not yet been released publicly),
the Pentagon report (prepared by Elana Broitman, the Defense Departments
top official on the US industrial base), stated: Global market forces are
leading to positive change in rare earth supply chains, and a sufficient
supply of most of these materials likely will be available to the defense
industrial base. Prices for most rare earth oxides and metals have
declined approximately 60% from their peaks in the summer of
2011. In 2011, Congress required the Pentagon to examine the use of rare
earth materials in defense applications, determine if non-U.S. supplies might
be disrupted, and suggest ways to ensure long-term availability, as well as
secure an assured source of supply by 2015.

AT: K2 Solar
REMs arent key to solar new tech means earthabundant materials solve
American Chemical Society 12
[8/21/12, ACS, New solar panels made with more common metals could be
cheaper and more sustainable,
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/august/new
-solar-panels-made-with-more-common-metals-could-be-cheaper-and-moresustainable.html]
With enough sunlight falling on home roofs to supply at least half of
Americas electricity, scientists today described advances toward the
less-expensive solar energy technology needed to roof many of those
homes with shingles that generate electricity. Shingles that generate
electricity from the sun, and can be installed like traditional roofing, already
are a commercial reality. But the advance a new world performance
record for solar cells made with earth-abundant materials could
make them more affordable and ease the integration of
photovoltaics into other parts of buildings, the scientists said. Their
report was part of a symposium on sustainability at the 244th National
Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society, the worlds largest
scientific society, being held here this week. Abstracts of other presentations
appear below. Sustainability involves developing technology that can
be productive over the long-term, using resources in ways that meet
todays needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet
their needs, said Harry A. Atwater, Ph.D., one of the speakers. Thats
exactly what we are doing with these new solar-energy conversion devices.
The new photovoltaic technology uses abundant, less-expensive
materials like copper and zinc earth-abundant materials
instead of indium, gallium and other so-called rare earth
elements. These substances not only are scarce, but are supplied largely by
foreign countries, with China mining more than 90 percent of the rare earths
needed for batteries in hybrid cars, magnets, electronics and other high-tech
products. Atwater and James C. Stevens, Ph.D., described successful efforts
to replace rare earth and other costly metals in photovoltaic devices
with materials that are less-expensive and more sustainable. Atwater,
a physicist at the California Institute of Technology, and Stevens, a chemist
with The Dow Chemical Company, lead a partnership between their
institutions to develop new electronic materials suitable for use in solarenergy-conversion devices. Atwater and Stevens described development
and testing of new devices made with zinc phosphide and copper
oxide that broke records for both electrical current and voltage
achieved by existing so-called thin-film solar energy conversion
devices made with zinc and copper. The advance adds to evidence
that materials like zinc phosphide and copper oxide should be
capable of achieving very high efficiencies, producing electricity at a

cost approaching that of coal-fired power plants. That milestone could


come within 20 years, Atwater said. Stevens helped develop Dows
PowerHouse Solar Shingle, introduced in October 2011, which generates
electricity and nevertheless can be installed like traditional roofing. The
shingles use copper indium gallium diselenide photovoltaic technology. His
team now is eyeing incorporation of sustainable earth-abundant
materials into PowerHouse shingles, making them more widely available.
The United States alone has about 69 billion square feet of appropriate
residential rooftops that could be generating electricity from the sun,
Stevens said. The sunlight falling on those roofs could generate at least 50
percent of the nations electricity, and some estimates put that number
closer to 100 percent. With earth-abundant technology, that energy
could be harvested, at an enormous benefit to consumers and the
environment.

Zinc cells solve solar development without REMs


Wilton, writer for University of Oxford science blog, 12

[Pete, 6/28/12, University of Oxford, Zinc could replace 'rare earths' in solar
cells, screens, http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/120628.html]
Costly and rare indium, used in solar cells, and screens for TVs,
computers, and mobile phones, could be replaced with abundant and
cheap zinc, scientists at Oxford University believe. Because of its
combination of high transparency and high electrical conductivity indium tin
oxide (ITO) dominates the global market for coatings for solar cells and LCD
displays. The market for the material is estimated to be worth $26.8bn by
2016. However indium, a so-called 'rare earth' metal, is relatively
scarce and expensive and its supply is tightly controlled - China
produces over half of the worlds indium and recently reduced its export
quotas. Peter Edwards and colleagues at Oxford University's Department of
Chemistry have been investigating how to make alternative coatings from
cheaper, more abundant materials. Their research has come up with
new coatings based on silicon-doped zinc oxide. The Oxford team has
been working closely with Isis Innovation, the University's technology transfer
company, to protect and commercialise its research. As Isis report today, the
team has just won the Materials Science Venture Prize, awarded by the
Worshipful Company of Armourers and Brasiers, to develop manufacturing
processes for the group's coatings. Peter comments: 'Zinc is a much more
abundant material than indium, and our silicon-doped zinc oxide
material offers electrical conductivities around two thirds of ITO,
with comparable optical transparency. In addition to solar cells, our new
coating could be used with lighting displays and LCD displays used in smart
phones, computers and televisions.

AT: REMS K2 Nuclear Weapons


The nuclear weapons program is being maintained and
modernized now no loss in usage capability
Collina, Research Director at the Arms Control
Association, 14

[Tom Z., January, ACA, U.S. Nuclear Modernization Programs,


https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization]
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, nuclear weapons activities in the Department
of Energys National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees
the U.S. nuclear stockpile and production complex, will be funded at $7.78
billion, an 11.6 percent increase over FY 2013 at a time when other
defense budget accounts are in decline.[ii] The U.S. military is in the process
of modernizing all of its existing strategic delivery systems and refurbishing
the warheads they carry to last for the next 20-30 years or more. These
systems are in many cases being completely rebuilt with essentially
all new parts. This effort includes: Modernized Strategic Delivery Systems:
U.S. nuclear delivery systems are undergoing continual
modernization, including complete rebuilds of the Minuteman III ICBM
and Trident II SLBM. The service lives of Trident Ohio-class ballistic
missile submarines are being extended. Additionally, a new
submarine, the SSBNX, which will replace the existing Ohio-class
ballistic missile submarines, is undergoing development and is expected
to cost about $100 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The
B-2 strategic bomber, a relatively new system, is being upgraded, as
is the B-52H bomber. The Air Force is also planning a new Long Range
Bomber and a new cruise missile to replace the Air-Launched Cruise
Missile (ALCM). Refurbished Nuclear Warheads: The U.S. stockpile of
nuclear warheads and bombs is continually refurbished through
NNSAs Life Extension Program (LEP). Existing warheads are certified
annually to be safe and reliable. The JASON panel of independent
scientists has found no evidence that extending the lives of
existing U.S. nuclear warheads would lead to reduced confidence
that the weapons will work. The panel concluded in its September 2009
report that Lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for
decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence.[iii] The United States
does not need to resume nuclear test explosions, nor does it need to
build new replacement warhead designs to maintain the reliability
and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Modernized Production
Complex: The nuclear weapons production complex is being
modernized as well, with new facilities planned and funded. The FY
2014 NNSA budget includes $309 million for the Uranium Processing Facility
(UPF) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The total construction cost for UPF is
estimated at $6.5 7.5 billion, according to an independent study conducted
by the Corps of Engineers.[iv]

AT: Deterrence
No impact to nuclear deterrence threats arent credible
and conventional weapons solve
Gerson, research analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses,
10
[Michael S., Fall 2010, CAN, The Next Step for U.S. Nuclear Policy,
International Security, Vol. 35, No. 2 , pp. 747]
The threat to use nuclear weapons first may lack credibility in the
minds of many current and potential adversaries. The first-use
option can contribute to deterrence and security only if the opponent
believes that there is at least some reasonable chance that the
United States might actually use nuclear weapons first. In todays
international security environment, no state can doubt that the United States
possesses sufficient nuclear capabilities to inict severe costs, but a state
reasonably could question whether the United States has the
requisite political resolve to use nuclear weapons first, especially over
stakes that do not directly threaten U.S. national security
interests.84 The incredibility of U.S. first-use threats rests on several
grounds. First, as discussed above, there are no realistic military
contingencies that would require the first use of nuclear weapons.
Absent a compelling military need to use nuclear weapons first, U.S. nuclear
threats are unnecessary and will therefore lack credibility. Conversely, U.S.
conventional capabilities are highly credible and have been
demonstrated in numerous postCold War operations to be more than
sufficient to inict substantial costs, and it is unlikely that an opponent
would believe that the United States would use nuclear weapons if
there were effective conventional options. In fact, the emphasis in
recent years on developing a new generation of high-precision, longrange conventional weaponsexemplified by the U.S. militarys Prompt
Global Strike mission, which seeks to develop conventional capabilities that
can strike targets anywhere in the world within one hour85demonstrates
how hard the United States is working to preclude having to use
nuclear weapons in any contingency short of a response to a nuclear
attack. Second, there are potentially significant political costs to the
United States for using nuclear weapons first, especially regarding
U.S. efforts to lead the charge against nuclear proliferation, and
these costs diminish the credibility of U.S. first use.86 Given that the
United States has traditionally been the most globally active nation
in the realm of nonproliferation, the threat to use nuclear weapons first
and risk undermining U.S. leadership of the NPT regime, legitimizing the use
of nuclear weapons, and potentially spurring further proliferation will likely
ring hollow. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the United
States to reconcile its first use of nuclear weapons with continued
leadership on nonproliferation. Despite the national and international
security benefits of U.S. activism against the further spread of nuclear

weapons, an unintended consequence of these efforts has likely been to


further weaken the credibility of U.S. threats to use nuclear weapons first.
Third, whereas implicit or explicit nuclear threats from rogue states have
some inherent credibility because of the belief that these regimes are
fanatical and risk acceptantthat is why, after all, they are roguesin the
nuclear realm the United States is generally perceived to be rational,
risk averse, and sensitive to civilian casualties and other collateral
damage.87 These beliefs reduce the credibility of first-use threats by
further strengthening the view that U.S. political leaders are bound
by the nuclear taboo, a normative constraint against using nuclear
weapons that emerged after World War II.88 For the United States, the
nuclear taboo inuences the range of military options considered by
decisionmakers by imposing criteria of proportionality and domestic and
international legitimacy on the use of force, and such constraints are not lost
on current and potential adversaries.89 Unlike rogue states, the United
States does not readily benefit from the rationality of
irrationality,90 which increases the credibility of nuclear threats by
convincing decisionmakers that the opponent might not make logical
cost-benefit calculations, and therefore might not be constrained by the
logic of appropriateness on which the nuclear taboo depends. Despite the
contention of one high-level advisory panel to U.S. Strategic Command
arguing that it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational or coolheaded, and that the fact that some elements may appear to potentially be
out of control can be beneficial, U.S. policymakers have been reluctant
to send these kinds of signals in the nuclear arena since the end of the
Cold War.91

AT: US-China Conflict


Relations are resilient
Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, 6/25/14
[Daniel R., U.S. State Department, The Future of U.S.-China Relations,
http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2014/06/228415.htm, accessed 7/8/2014
CK]
Yet there is still enormous potential for progress in the U.S.-China
relationship. Progress that will yield benefits to the citizens of both countries,
our neighbors, and the world. To realize this progress and these benefits, we
seek to ensure that the relationship is not defined by strategic rivalry, but by
fair and healthy competition, by practical cooperation on priority issues, and
by constructive management of our differences and disagreements. Where
interests overlap, we will seek to expand cooperation with China. These areas
include economic prosperity, a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, peaceful
resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, and a reduction in the emission of
greenhouse gases. Where they diverge and we have significant and wellknown areas of disagreement we will work to ensure that our differences
are constructively managed. Mr. Chairman, there are those who argue that
cold war-like rivalry is inevitable and that the United States and China are
condemned to a zero-sum struggle for supremacy, if not conflict. I reject such
mechanistic thinking. As anyone who has served in government can tell you,
this deterministic analysis overlooks the role of leaders who have the ability
to set policy and to shape relationships. It gives short shrift to the fact that
our two economies are becoming increasingly intertwined, which increases
each sides stake in the success of the other. It undervalues the fact that
leaders in Washington and Beijing are fully cognizant of the risk of
unintended strategic rivalry between an emerging power and an established
power and have agreed to take deliberate actions to prevent such an
outcome. And it ignores the reality of the past 35 years that, in spite of our
differences, U.S.-China relations have steadily grown deeper and stronger
and in doing so, we have built a very resilient relationship. We view Chinas
economic growth as complementary to the regions prosperity, and Chinas
expanded role in the region can be complementary to the sustained U.S.
strategic engagement in the Asia-Pacific. We and our partners in the region
want Chinas rise to contribute to the stability and continued development of
the region. As President Obama and Secretary Kerry have made very clear,
we do not seek to contain China; to the contrary, we welcome the emergence
of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China. We believe all countries, and
particularly emerging powers like China, should recognize the self-benefit of
upholding basic rules and norms on which the international system is built;
these are rules and norms which China has participated in formulating and
shaping, and they are rules and norms that it continues to benefit from. In
this context, we are encouraging China to exercise restraint in dealing with its

neighbors and show respect for universal values and international law both at
home and abroad.

No US-China war nuclear deterrence and geography


mean that despite tensions, conflict would never erupt
Keck, international relations and defense writer, 13
[Zachary, 7/12/13, The Diplomat, Why China and the US (Probably) Wont Go
to War, http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/why-china-and-the-us-probablywont-go-to-war/, accessed 7/1/14, TYBG]
But while trade cannot be relied upon to keep the peace, a U.S.-China war is
virtually unthinkable because of two other factors: nuclear weapons and
geography. The fact that both the U.S. and China have nuclear weapons is the
most obvious reasons why they wont clash, even if they remain fiercely
competitive. This is because war is the continuation of politics by other
means, and nuclear weapons make war extremely bad politics. Put
differently, war is fought in pursuit of policy ends, which cannot be achieved
through a total war between nuclear-armed states. This is not only because of
nuclear weapons destructive power. As Thomas Schelling outlined brilliantly,
nuclear weapons have not actually increased humans destructive
capabilities. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that wars between nomads
usually ended with the victors slaughtering all of the individuals on the losing
side, because of the economics of holding slaves in nomadic societies.
What makes nuclear weapons different, then, is not just their destructive
power but also the certainty and immediacy of it. While extremely ambitious
or desperate leaders can delude themselves into believing they can prevail in
a conventional conflict with a stronger adversary because of any number of
factorssuperior will, superior doctrine, the weather etc. none of this
matters in nuclear war. With nuclear weapons, countries dont have to prevail
on the battlefield or defeat an opposing army to destroy an entire country,
and since there are no adequate defenses for a large-scale nuclear attack,
every leader can be absolute certain that most of their country can be
destroyed in short-order in the event of a total conflict. Since no policy goal is
worth this level of sacrifice, the only possible way for an all-out conflict to
ensue is for a miscalculation of some sort to occur. Most of these can and
should be dealt by Chinese and the U.S. leaders holding regularly senior level
dialogues like the ones of the past month, in which frank and direct talk about
redlines are discussed. These can and should be supplemented with clear and
open communication channels, which can be especially useful when
unexpected crises arise, like an exchange of fire between low-level naval
officers in the increasingly crowded waters in the region. While this possibility
is real and frightening, its hard to imagine a plausible scenario where it leads
to a nuclear exchange between China and the United States. After all, at each
stage of the crisis leaders know that if it is not properly contained, a nuclear
war could ensue, and the complete destruction of a leaders country is a
more frightening possibility than losing credibility among hawkish elements
of society. In any case, measured means of retaliation would be available to
the party wronged, and behind-the-scenes diplomacy could help facilitate the

process of finding mutually acceptable retaliatory measures. Geography is


the less appreciated factor that will mitigate the chances of a U.S.-China war,
but it could be nearly as important as nuclear weapons. Indeed, geography
has a history of allowing countries to avoid the Thucydides Trap, and works
against a U.S.-China war in a couple of ways. First, both the United States and
China are immensely large countriesaccording to the Central Intelligence
Agency, the U.S. and China are the third and fourth largest countries in the
world by area, at 9,826,675 and 9,596,961 square km respectively. They also
have difficult topographical features and complex populations. As such, they
are virtually unconquerable by another power. This is an important point and
differentiates the current strategic environment from historical cases where
power transitions led to war. For example, in Europe where many of the
historical cases derive from, each state genuinely had to worry that the other
side could increase their power capabilities to such a degree that they could
credibly threaten the other sides national survival. Neither China nor the U.S.
has to realistically entertain such fears, and this will lessen their insecurity
and therefore the security dilemma they operate within. Besides being
immensely large countries, China and the U.S. are also separated by the
Pacific Ocean, which will also weaken their sense of insecurity and threat
perception towards one another. In many of the violent power transitions of
the past, starting with Sparta and Athens but also including the European
ones, the rival states were located in close proximity to one another. By
contrast, when great power conflict has been avoided, the states have often
had considerable distance between them, as was the case for the U.S. and
British power transition and the peaceful end to the Cold War. The reason is
simple and similar to the one above: the difficulty of projecting power across
large distancesparticularly bodies of waters reduces each sides concern
that the other will threaten its national survival and most important strategic
interests. True, the U.S. operates extensively in Chinas backyard, and
maintains numerous alliances and partnerships with Beijings neighbors. This
undeniably heightens the risk of conflict. At the same time, the British were
active throughout the Western Hemisphere, most notably in Canada, and the
Americans maintained a robust alliance system in Western Europe throughout
the Cold War. Even with the U.S. presence in Asia, then, the fact that the
Chinese and American homelands are separated by the largest body of water
in the world is enormously important in reducing their conflict potential, if
history is any guide at least. Thus, while every effort should be made to avoid
a U.S.-China war, it is nearly unthinkable one will occur.

Recycling Solves Scarcity


Rare earth recycling is increasing now and solves scarcity
Clancy, Forbes staff writer, 14

[Heather, 2/25/14, Forbes, Rare Earth Recycling Takes On New Luster,


http://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherclancy/2014/02/25/rare-earth-recyclingtakes-on-new-luster/]
One notable example is Hondas move last year with Japan Metals &
Chemicals (JMC) to start reusing rare earth substances in used nickelmetal hydride (NiMH) batteries in new onesafter announcing its
intention to do so in 2012. The automaker is using molten salt
electrolysis to pull the materials out of an oxide extracted from the
batteries: removing about 80 percent of whats in the original . Those
substances are being supplied to a battery maker, which is using them for
negative electrode materials in hybrid vehicle batteries. Belgian company
Umicore actually made this commercially feasible even earlier than
Honda. The company, which processes more than 350,000 tons of every year
including industrial by-products, catalysts and end-of-life products, has a
partnership with chemical company Rhodia that is also focused on NiMH.
Rechargeable NiMH batteries are found in everything from cordless phones,
toys and games to power tools to hybrid electric vehicles. Theres about 1
gram (0.03 ounces of rare earth stuff in an AAA battery and up to 2 kilograms
(4 pounds, 6 ounces) in a hybrid EV battery. Lithium-ion batteries dont have
the same recovery potential. In the short term, we think recycling will be
one of the few rare earth plays with upward motion, writes cleantech
analyst Dallas Kachan, in his 2014 annual predictions blog. Why? Much of
the industry has been focused on new mines to meet growing demand for
rare earths. But recycling of rare earths is gaining momentum quietly , and
stands to accelerate in 2014 given the increasing costs of mining
and cost and schedule overruns at high profile sites like Molycorps
Mountain Pass California mine. Aside from Honda, two other big companies
talking up rare earth recycling and recovery include Mitsubishi Electric (which
is recovering them from air-conditioning compressors) and Veolia
Environmental Services (which plans to begin recovering them from 15
million pounds of e-waste and lamps at a facility in West Bridgewater, Mass.)
Rare earths are not just important for green technologiessuch as thin solar
panels that are hungry for tellurium or fuel cells that need platinum for their
catalyst or wind turbine gearboxesbut also in smartphones and other
mobile gadgets. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
recycling 1 million mobile phones could recover a tremendous volume of rare
and precious metals: 50 pounds of gold, 550 pounds of silver, 20 pounds of
palladium and 20,000 pounds of copper. Their circuit boards can also contain
coltan, zinc, beryllium, the list goes on.

***China Exports DA

NEG

1NC Shell
Chinas solar PV export market growing now- key to
Chinas economic growth- our evidence is predictive
EPS, Electronic Purchasing Strategies, 7-15-14
(July 15th, the premier news, information and data portal and resource center
for buyers, sellers and suppliers of components, design, distribution, logistics,
production and other services to the global electronics manufacturing
industry Domestic Suppliers Dominate Chinese Solar Inverter Market,
http://electronicspurchasingstrategies.com/2014/07/15/domestic-suppliersdominate-chinese-solar-inverter-market/, accessed 7/16/14, LLM)
London The Chinese photovoltaic (PV) solar inverter market grew by more
than 100 percent in 2013, providing a huge boost to the countrys domestic
supplier base, according to the latest report from IHS Technology (NYSE: IHS).
The 10 largest suppliers in China 2013 were all domestic companies, and all
benefited from explosive growth as the market expanded to nearly $800
million, up from $400 million in 2012. Chinas PV inverter market is forecast
to generate robust growth over the coming years and reach 18 gigawatts
(GW) of annual shipments in 2018, up from 11 GW in 2013. Much of this
growth will be driven by the increasing momentum of the distributed PV
business. Chinas push toward distributed PV has been to slow to get started,
and IHS believes that actual installations fell significantly short of the 8 GW
target that was set for 2013. Nonetheless, this increasingly important
segment will be a key driver for growth. Furthermore, this shift toward
smaller rooftop systems will spur the adoption of lower-power inverters.
Inverters play an essential role in PV installations, converting the direct
current (DC) electricity produced by solar panels into alternating current (AC)
useful in power grids. These findings can be found in the report, PV Inverter
China Market Report 2014, from the Power & Energy service of IHS.
International suppliers shut out For the second year in a row, no international
suppliers appeared among the IHS ranking of the 10 largest PV inverter
suppliers to China. However, domestic suppliers also faced problems of their
own. Although China represents a huge opportunity for its own suppliers in
terms of volume, low pricing caused by fiercely competitive local companies,
highly complex business conditions and lengthy credit terms have either
prevented them from succeeding in gaining a sizable share of the market, or
forced them to concentrate on other regions.

Solar market export share is essential to energy security


and economic growth- no risk of a link turn- Beijing
leaders perceive its true
Kaften, International Economic Analyst for PV Magazine,
2012

(Cheryl, May 7th, Solar 'smackdowns' resume in reaction to Chinas 5 year


plan, http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/solar-smackdownsresume-in-reaction-to-chinas-5-year-plan_100006652/#axzz37nG234Qo,
accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
The growth of Chinas solar sector during the past five-year cycle has
catapulted the country to number one in production and international sales. A
February 2012 report from the Peoples Republic (PRC) touted the finding
that, by last year, Chinas domestic solar industry accounted for more than
95 percent of total solar cell production worldwide. The report implies that,
without Chinas aggressive growth policies, the international solar sector
would not have advanced at nearly the same rate. "During the 11th Five-Year
Plan period, Chinas PV industry broke development bottlenecks in materials,
markets, and human resource development. The size of the industry grew
rapidly, and a complete upstream and downstream industrial chain was
emerging," it states, adding, "The rise of Chinas PV (photovoltaic) industry
led the development of the global PV industry, effectively promoted
technological progress, reduced costs of PV products, and accelerated
industry application of PV around the world." Now, Beijing plans to do more of
the same. In its 12th Five-Year Plan for the Solar Photovoltaic Industry
(translated and analyzed by Wiley Rein LLP, a Washington, D.C.-based law
firm), China acknowledges that, "from a global perspective, it will take some
time before PV power generation becomes competitive in the market pricewise." Therefore, the PRC says that demand for solar systems should be
driven "mainly by policy support and price subsidies provided to the PV
industry by governments in all countries. The continued growth of the market
will also facilitate expansion of the industry size and reduction in product
costs." Beijings leadership team sees solar production and sales as a
vital cornerstone of its economy one that cannot and should not be
compromised. "From the perspective of the strategic path of Chinas social
and economic development, promoting the solar PV industry is essential to
guarantee energy supply, establish a low-carbon society, promote economic
restructuring, and foster strategic emerging industries. During the 12th FiveYear Plan period, Chinas PV industry will continue to maintain rapid
development, facing great opportunities and formidable challenges."

Despite regime tactics of control, economic growth is key


to prevent nationalism and CCP instability
Barber, doctoral candidate at the University of Auckland,
specializing in the history of international arbitration and
the development of globalization, commerce, and trade,
6-10-14
(Christopher, China: Wealth and Democracy Will Western levels of income
mean that China adopts Western models of democracy?,
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/china-wealth-and-democracy/, accessed
7/8/14, LLM)

the Communist Party will collapse and democracy will eventually triumph in China is
a grave misreading of the situation. The party stands as a harmonizing and unifying force
in Chinese society a far more important consideration for the middle class given the painful
The idea that

legacy of Chinas historical fragmentation in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Indeed, it stands

if the CCP succeeds in elevating China into the echelons of the


high income bracket, then conversely it will act as a powerful legitimating device
for the regime. If anything, Chinese nationalism serves as a far more popular discourse in mainstream
to reason that

society; whether it is populist anger at Japan or the huge crowds that flock daily to watch the flag raising

In terms of maintaining harmony, nationalism can be


a double-edged sword for the CCP. Displays of patriotism can help to maintain unity and assist
in diverting the populations attention from pressing domestic issues. Yet at the same time, zealous
nationalism can be harmful to Chinas international image and threaten to
undercut its peaceful rise narrative. Nationalism, like all things in China,
needs to be carefully stage managed in order to prevent it from causing
social instability. Stage management and social stability are the keywords in
the CCPs lexicon of governance. Beijing is learning to account for its actions to its people. For
ceremony in Tiananmen Square.

instance, recent worries about the capital citys rising levels of air pollution have made the authorities
more aware of environmental matters. Policy changes aimed at dealing with the issue of air pollution
demonstrate the ability of the government to shift resources in order to troubleshoot popular issues.

Thus, given the governments sensitivity towards public opinion , considered


political change over the coming years or decades, depending on the boldness of party
leadership, is quite likely. Whether this will take the form of an empowered National Peoples
Congress, more inclusive decision-making at the party level, or greater democracy at the local level only

The CCP, though, is no house of cards; as Eric X. Li writes in Foreign Affairs, Beijing is more
CCPs adaptability,
system of meritocracy, and legitimacy with the Chinese people. That in no way assures the
CCPs future survivability as in any political system, changing socioeconomic contexts invariably influences political regimes . But even if the regime
time will tell.

than able to meet the countrys ills with dynamism and resilience, thanks to the

loses its communist faade in place of a more democratic model, there is no suggestion that the elites or
the red nobility that act as the invisible state will be displaced from positions of authority. Indeed, very
few revolutions or changes to the status quo are quite as radical as people tend to think. Pragmatic elites
invariably negotiate with the changing times so that it appears that the political arrangement has
changed. Reform is easy, elitism and dynasty are much harder commodities to flush out of the system. The
fact that China has a huge income inequality gap already shows that in the event of a post-communist

the
West should watch Chinas political stability with a high degree of caution .
While liberal political reforms are desperately needed to improve the human rights situation in China , a
radical rupture in the political system could signal an uncertain future for
China and the world.
meltdown there will be elites ready to step into the breach just like the oligarchs in Russia. Thus,

CCP instability triggers a nuclear civil war and regional


conflicts that escalate
Yee, politics and international relations professor and
Hong Kong Baptist University, and Storey, Defense
professor at Deakin University, 2002 (Herbert and Ian, April 11th,
2002, Routledge publisher, The China Threat: Perceptions, Myths and
Reality, pg 5, InformaWorld)
The fourth factor contributing to the perception of a China threat is the fear
of political and economic collapse in the PRC, resulting in territorial

fragmentation, civil war and waves of refugees pouring into


neighbouring countries. Naturally, any or all of these scenarios would
have a profoundly negative impact on regional stability. Today the
Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal problems, including the
increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a
shortage of natural resources and a deterioration in the natural
environment caused by rapid industrialisation and pollution. These
problems are putting a strain on the central government's ability to govern
effectively. Political disintegration or a Chinese civil war might
result in millions of Chinese refugees seeking asylum in
neighbouring countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees
from a collapsed PRC would no doubt put a severe strain on the limited
resources of China's neighbours. A fragmented China could also result
in another nightmare scenario - nuclear weapons falling into the
hands of irresponsible local provincial leaders or warlords.'2 From
this perspective, a disintegrating China would also pose a threat to
its neighbours and the world.

Uniqueness
The solar markets growing now and they are dominating,
but rely exclusively on exports for success
Willis, Energy Analyst for OFweek, 7-16-14
(Ben, OFweek is a comprehensive web portal in China's high-tech industry
with 1,000,000 members across various industries, Domestic suppliers
strengthen grip on booming Chinese inverter market,
http://global.ofweek.com/news/Domestic-suppliers-strengthen-grip-onbooming-Chinese-inverter-market-15012, accessed 7/17/14, LLM)
Chinas PV inverter market grew more than 100% last year, with domestic
firms dominating the top of the rankings, according to IHS. The market
research firms PV inverter China market report 2014 said explosive growth
in inverter sales in China last year saw revenues mushroom from US$400
million in 2012 to US$800 million. Chinese suppliers were the chief
beneficiary of this, with the top 10 positions occupied entirely by domestic
companies for the second year running. At the top of the list for the fourth
consecutive year was Sungrow, which had 30% of the market share in 2013.
The other top-five suppliers were TBEA Sunoasis, Emerson Network Power,
Chint and KStar. But the fact each of these enjoyed less than 4% market
share each IHS said illustrates the difficult business conditions faced by
Chinese inverter manufacturers. Low pricing caused by fiercely competitive
local companies, highly complex business conditions and lengthy credit terms
have either prevented them from succeeding in gaining a sizable share of the
market, or forced them to concentrate on other regions, IHS said.
Nevertheless, IHS said burgeoning demand would generate robust growth in
the Chinese PV inverter market in coming years, with shipments forecast to
reach 18GW by 2018. Although utility-scale PV projects accounted for some
93% of inverter revenues last year, IHS said the distributed PV market would
become increasingly important for inverter suppliers. China has set a target
of 8GW of distributed PV for 2014. IHS said that although a slow start to the
year meant probably only 4GW of that would get built, distributed systems
would become an increasingly important market for inverter suppliers,
prompting a shift to lower power inverters. After several years of dramatic
growth for huge ground-mount utility-scale projects in remote areas of the
country, China has begun to place increased emphasis on the development of
distributed rooftop solar in areas with high demand for electricity, said Frank
Xie, senior PV market analyst at IHS. This growing demand for smaller
inverters will lead to changes to the PV inverter supplier rankings in 2014 and
2015, Xie added. Although small string inverters will account for a growing
share of the market, IHS forecasts that large central inverters will remain the
mainstream for utility-scale PV systems in China due to their lower upfront
cost and fewer connection points, Xie concluded. High power inverters are
predicted to account for 80 percent of shipments to these systems in 2018.

Chinas solar PV export market growing now- key to


Chinas economic growth- our evidence is predictive
EPS, Electronic Purchasing Strategies, 7-15-14
(July 15th, the premier news, information and data portal and resource center
for buyers, sellers and suppliers of components, design, distribution, logistics,
production and other services to the global electronics manufacturing
industry Domestic Suppliers Dominate Chinese Solar Inverter Market,
http://electronicspurchasingstrategies.com/2014/07/15/domestic-suppliersdominate-chinese-solar-inverter-market/, accessed 7/16/14, LLM)
London The Chinese photovoltaic (PV) solar inverter market grew by more
than 100 percent in 2013, providing a huge boost to the countrys domestic
supplier base, according to the latest report from IHS Technology (NYSE: IHS).
The 10 largest suppliers in China 2013 were all domestic companies, and all
benefited from explosive growth as the market expanded to nearly $800
million, up from $400 million in 2012. Chinas PV inverter market is forecast
to generate robust growth over the coming years and reach 18 gigawatts
(GW) of annual shipments in 2018, up from 11 GW in 2013. Much of this
growth will be driven by the increasing momentum of the distributed PV
business. Chinas push toward distributed PV has been to slow to get started,
and IHS believes that actual installations fell significantly short of the 8 GW
target that was set for 2013. Nonetheless, this increasingly important
segment will be a key driver for growth. Furthermore, this shift toward
smaller rooftop systems will spur the adoption of lower-power inverters.
Inverters play an essential role in PV installations, converting the direct
current (DC) electricity produced by solar panels into alternating current (AC)
useful in power grids. These findings can be found in the report, PV Inverter
China Market Report 2014, from the Power & Energy service of IHS.
International suppliers shut out For the second year in a row, no international
suppliers appeared among the IHS ranking of the 10 largest PV inverter
suppliers to China. However, domestic suppliers also faced problems of their
own. Although China represents a huge opportunity for its own suppliers in
terms of volume, low pricing caused by fiercely competitive local companies,
highly complex business conditions and lengthy credit terms have either
prevented them from succeeding in gaining a sizable share of the market, or
forced them to concentrate on other regions.

China has control of solar exports now and is looking to


increase their solar market share
Ayre, Geopolitical Analyst, University of Astnide, 7-6-14

(James, July 6th, China Now The Worlds Largest Solar PV Market,
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/06/china-now-worlds-largest-solar-pvmarket/, accessed 7/16/14, LLM)
China is now the worlds largest solar PV market, according to the Global New
Energy Development Report 2014, having now surpassed Germany to take
the top spot. The new report explores other topics as well, and provides a
comprehensive overview of the global renewable energy market. It was
prepared by Hanergy Holding Group and China New Energy Chamber of
Commerce. Amongst the most interesting things to note are that 38.7 GW of
new solar PV capacity was installed in 2013, and that out of that total figure
12 GW was installed in China thats a 232% increase over the previous
year in the eastern manufacturing powerhouse. Total global cumulative
installed solar PV capacity now rests at 140.6 GW. The figures match up with
what has been predicted by many analysts, the industrys slow shift from the
European to the Asian market. The global new energy industry experienced
sustained growth in 2013, as governments aligned their national energy mix
to eliminate pollutants and improve the ecological environment, China New
Energy Chamber of Commerce vice president Zeng Shaojun said. Chinese
companies will be investing more heavily in technological advances and
accelerate their pace of going global, in an effort to increase their shares in
the global new energy market, Zeng added. Since 2012, Chinese regulators
have been releasing a series of policies and measures, including the State
Councils Opinions on Promoting the Healthy Development of the PV industry,
significantly propelling the development of the countrys solar power market.
As of the end of 2013, Chinas grid-connected solar capacity reached 14.79
GW, up 340% year on year. Over the last few years Chinas PV export
demand has fallen as the result of weak economic growth in the European
and American markets, and also as the result of lower subsidies for exports to
said markets + protectionist policies undertaken on behalf of those markets.
2013 was a bit of a turning point though, thanks to the countrys shift to
emerging markets. Solar exports to Asia climbed 124% year on year in 2013
up to $5.5 billion, thereby accounting for 44.8% of total exports. Another
market that saw big growth was the African one, which saw figures surge
387% in 2013 up to $570 million.

Competitiveness and exportability, especially in ocean


energy, gain support for Xis push for renewables. Also,
the size of Chinas economy means the disad outweighs
the case.
Wheeler, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Sustainability) at the
University of Plymouth and Dean of the Plymouth
Business School, 2012

(David, November 7th, But Will Barack Obama or Xi Jinping save the planet?,
Click Green, http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/opinion/opinion/123709-but-willbarack-obama-or-xi-jinping-save-the-planet.html)
While it is indeed welcome that the largest economy in the world (for now) is
run by a President who appears determined to address the domestic risks of
climate change, it was in Beijing that more decisive policies were being
fashioned. For it is in China, not in the US, that rapid economic growth
creates the most spectacular environmental risks and perhaps the greatest
opportunities for innovation in sustainable energy, transportation and
agriculture. In the run-up to the 18th National Congress of the Communist
Party of China there was clear recognition of the momentous environmental
challenges the world is facing, and the increasing responsibility of the worlds
second largest economy to address those challenges. According to the
English language China Daily, official Party commentary acknowledged that
Problems have emerged in the country's economic development, including
unreasonable energy consumption and environmental pollution, causing
some to doubt whether the world can survive a China living an American
lifestyle. Popular unrest over environmental pollution continues to grow in
China, with street protests successfully halting the $8.8bn expansion of a
Sinopec petrochemical plant in Ningbo in October. Warnings are issued on a
regular basis by state environmental protection agencies concerned about
water, soil and air quality issues. Persistent photochemical smog remains a
serious environmental health issue in many of Chinas largest cities. And
Chinese scholars have estimated that the Chinese economy is incurring
environmental costs as high as 8.9% of Gross National Income, compared to
just 0.5% in Germany. But things are changing fast. In Chinas new Energy
Policy 2012, released in late October, the State Council announced that China
wants to cut CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 (compared
to 2005 levels). The Chinese Government promises strong support for hydroelectricity, biomass, wind and solar energy generation. And doubtless
spotting a massive export opportunity for Chinese technology - China has
signalled the resumption of its domestic nuclear power generation
programme as part of a commitment to reach 15% non-fossil fuel electricity
generation by 2020. In pursuing such a radical transformation in its energy
mix, China is taking to heart the advice of business experts that supporting
domestic markets for clean energy will enable China to compete globally in
the development, sale and deployment of 21st century energy technology.
In a report for WWF released in June 2012: Clean Economy, Living Planet
The Race to the Top of the Global Cleantech Market, authors Arnoud van der
Slot and Ward van den Berg of strategy consultants Roland Berger noted that
by 2015, the cleantech sector could be as large as 290 bn - up from 200
bn in 2011. Fastest growing suppliers to the global cleantech market in
2010/11 were Taiwan (+36% on the 2009/2010) and China (+29%). India and
South Korea were tied at +19%. But most telling of all is that Chinas
absolute sales of cleantech equipment (57 bn in 2011), are now greater
than both the EU (47 bn) and the US (37 bn). As a proportion of clean tech

sales to GDP, at 1.7%, China is well placed between Denmark (1st) and
Germany (3rd) in the ranking of economies focused on green manufacturing.
Around half of these sales are wind and solar technology. According to the
WWF report, in 2011 seven of the worlds top 10 public flotations in cleantech
industries were Chinese companies. And loan guarantees of more than $40bn
were provided to seven Chinese companies in the solar energy business in
the same year. Given the continuing weakness of the European and US
economies, and the massive investments in cleantech R&D being made by
Chinese and South Korean businesses, there can hardly be any doubt that it
will be East Asian businesses, and not European or American firms that will be
dominating many cleantech growth opportunities in coming decades. The
predicted $100bn per annum global ocean energy industry is one very
obvious candidate as infrastructure moves offshore and where Chinese
engineering strengths will supplement her leadership in wind technology. As
long ago as 1995, strategy guru Michael Porter wrote in the Harvard Business
Review: Successful environmentalists, regulatory agencies and companies
will reject old trade offs and build on the underlying economic logic that links
the environment, resource productivity, innovation and competitiveness.

Link
Reforms are key to transition to Chinas economy and
transition to renewables
Swanson, Chinese Political and Economic Analyst for the
Wall Street Selector, 2012
(Ryan, Can Xi Jinping Tackley Chinas Energy Challenges, March 26, Wall
Street Sector Selector, http://wallstreetsectorselector.com/2012/03/can-xijinping-tackle-chinas-energy-challenges-part-two-fxi-chie-gex-ung-kol/#)
Many are asking what Chinas once-in-a-decade leadership change will mean for China (NYSEARCA:FXI)
and the world. As the affable and liberal Xi Jinping prepares to become Chinas next president, diplomats
and leaders of Western nations are eager to push for reforms within China, ranging from human rights to
monetary policy to economic restructuring. Perhaps a more important question to ask, however, is how

new Politburo Standing Committeethe nine-person committee of highest authority in


Chinas central governmentmight shape Chinas energy policy (NYSEARCA:CHIE) in the
coming decade. Indeed, most of Chinas energy challenges (NYSEARCA:CHIE) are
institutional rather than technological, and Chinas new leadership may be up
to the task of long-awaited reform. Unlike Hu Jintao who first visited the US in 2002, Xi Jinping
has made numerous trips to the US since his first visit in 1985. His daughter attends Harvard University,
his sister lives in Canada, and he openly expresses a fondness of US war movies; furthermore, Xi is known
for staying clean in a notoriously corrupt political system. All of these traits have encouraged analysts that

Xi may be able to resolve Chinas political economic contradictions: to fully


transition China from a centrally-planned to a market-based economy, from
an agrarian to a post-industrial society. These impartial transitions have
characterized Chinas state capitalism, where state-owned enterprises wield tremendous
monopolies and labor remains cheap, but the growth model has not come without costs.
Serious financial imbalances, environmental degradation, and international
trade disputes have prompted Chinese officials to consider slowly steering the
enormous juggernaut in a new direction . Earlier this month, the World Bank released a 448page report titled China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative High-Income Society,
offering numerous and complex policy recommendationsessentially a prescription for China to

Green development
(NYSEARCA:GEX) received significant attention in the report as well as the energy
policy reforms necessary for China to forge a path of low carbon
development. Distilling the reports findings into simplest terms, Chinas heavy reliance on
command-and-control operations, as opposed to market-based mechanisms,
has led to resource allocation inefficiencies and market distortions. These
inefficiencies and distortions have and continue to hinder Chinas transition to an
economy based on alternative energy sources, such as wind (NYSEARCA:FAN) solar
strengthen its private sector and complete its transition to a market economy.

(NYSEARCA:TAN) and shale gas (NYSEARCA:UNG). On page 264, the World Bank report explains: At

In the case of
the wind turbine and solar PV industries , for example, private companies are
mainly concentrated in equipment manufacturing, while state-owned
enterprises (SOEs) continue to monopolize the electricity generation market .
present, there is still not a level playing field for investment in emerging industries.

State-owned enterprises also dominate the development of shale gas, which will continue to be noncompetitive so long as the legal rights to shale gas resources are not clearly defined.

A new coordinated renewable energy policy in the US


would be zero-sum, and green tech exports are key to
Chinas economic growth
Richardson, former Asia editor of the International Herald
Tribune, is a visiting senior research fellow at the
Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore, 2011
(Michael, Chinas Green Ambition, US Sees Red,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinas-green-ambition-us-sees-red,
accessed 7/17/14, LLM)

But America needs a more coordinated approach if its to compete with China
in clean-energy manufacturing and exports. A study published by the Harvard
Kennedy Schools Belfer Center found that, unlike industrialized countries,
China and most other major emerging economies coordinate and support
energy R&D through government-owned enterprises. The study covered
Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa. By some estimates,
investments in renewable-energy assets may total US$2.3 trillion by 2020,
yielding increased jobs and exports as well as reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, for countries that harness green technology.
On 7 December, frustrated US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the first
meeting of the task force that China pumps almost US$12 billion monthly into
its renewable-energy sector: Theyre doing this because they really want to
be the worlds supplier of clean energy and they recognize this will support
millions of jobs.
Chinas rise in key sectors of the green-energy business has been
breathtaking. In 1999, China made around 1 percent of the photovoltaic cells
put into solar panels to generate electricity. A decade later its the worlds
leading producer, with a 40 percent share of the market.
Firms in China are expected to make more than half of all solar panels
manufactured this year and nearly 80 percent of solar hot-water units. The
nations also on course to produce nearly half the worlds wind-power
turbines, selling them at prices significantly lower than those of
manufacturers in the West and preparing for large-scale exports.
The US needs a more coordinated approach
if its to compete with China in clean-energy manufacturing and exports.
If China becomes a green-power export juggernaut, it will consolidate its lead
in global high-technology sales, leaving the US well behind. In 1998, the US
share of worldwide high-tech exports was nearly 25 percent while Chinas
was less than 10 percent. By 2008, Chinas share was 20 percent, with
Americas below 15 percent.

Leadership in clean-energy manufacturing is shifting from the West to Asia.


Within the Group of 20 leading economies, China, India, Japan and South
Korea are projected to account for approximately 40 percent of clean-energy
investments in 2020, leaving the US and Europe trailing.
A recent survey by Bloomberg, in collaboration with the UN Environment
Program, found that China became the largest recipient of renewable-energy
financing in 2009, attracting more than 20 percent of the US$162 billion
invested worldwide in wind, solar, biomass, small hydro, biofuel and marine
energy.
While such investment in China grew by 53 percent, it shrank in the US by 45
percent. The US exported at least $2 billion of solar, wind, biomass,
geothermal, hydropower and other renewable-energy products in 2009,
almost double the sum in 2007. But it ran a trade deficit in the combined
sectors, with imports of wind-power equipment alone amounting to more
than $3.6 billion.
If China becomes a green-power export juggernaut, it will consolidate its lead
in global high-technology sales, leaving the US well behind.
Reasons given for the Wests decline and Chinas rise are a new source of
friction in Sino-US relations. Both Washington and Beijing consider the cleantechnology sector crucial to energy security and economic growth.
However, renewable-energy companies in the US struggle to find
investments. Theyve cut jobs and, in some cases, moved operations to
China.

Solar market is essential to energy security and economic


growth- no risk of a link turn- Beijing leaders perceive its
true
Kaften, International Economic Analyst for PV Magazine,
2012
(Cheryl, May 7th, Solar 'smackdowns' resume in reaction to Chinas 5 year
plan, http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/solar-smackdownsresume-in-reaction-to-chinas-5-year-plan_100006652/#axzz37nG234Qo,
accessed 7/18/14, LLM)

The growth of Chinas solar sector during the past five-year cycle has
catapulted the country to number one in production and international sales. A
February 2012 report from the Peoples Republic (PRC) touted the finding
that, by last year, Chinas domestic solar industry accounted for more than
95 percent of total solar cell production worldwide.

The report implies that, without Chinas aggressive growth policies, the
international solar sector would not have advanced at nearly the same rate.
"During the 11th Five-Year Plan period, Chinas PV industry broke
development bottlenecks in materials, markets, and human resource
development. The size of the industry grew rapidly, and a complete upstream
and downstream industrial chain was emerging," it states, adding, "The rise
of Chinas PV (photovoltaic) industry led the development of the global PV
industry, effectively promoted technological progress, reduced costs of PV
products, and accelerated industry application of PV around the world."

Now, Beijing plans to do more of the same. In its 12th Five-Year Plan for the
Solar Photovoltaic Industry (translated and analyzed by Wiley Rein LLP, a
Washington, D.C.-based law firm), China acknowledges that, "from a global
perspective, it will take some time before PV power generation becomes
competitive in the market price-wise."

Therefore, the PRC says that demand for solar systems should be driven
"mainly by policy support and price subsidies provided to the PV industry by
governments in all countries. The continued growth of the market will also
facilitate expansion of the industry size and reduction in product costs."

Beijings leadership team sees solar production and sales as a vital


cornerstone of its economy one that cannot and should not be
compromised. "From the perspective of the strategic path of Chinas social
and economic development, promoting the solar PV industry is essential to
guarantee energy supply, establish a low-carbon society, promote economic
restructuring, and foster strategic emerging industries. During the 12th FiveYear Plan period, Chinas PV industry will continue to maintain rapid
development, facing great opportunities and formidable challenges."

Solar PV market key to sustainable Chinese economic


growth
Caoa School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, and Groba, German Institute for
Economic Research, Mohrenstrasse Berlin, 2013
(Jing, Felix, Chinese Renewable Energy Technology Exports: The Role of
Policy, Innovation and Markets,

http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.414422.de/dp1263.p
df, accessed 7/17/14, LLM)
Since 1990, Chinas economic growth and export performance has been
exceptional. The rapid growth in energy consumption and carbon emissions
makes China a decisive player in global climate negotiations. In attempting to
create more sustainable growth, China has introduced various policies
designed to increase its renewable energy generation capacity and to
establish an industrial base for clean technology production. With respect to
the latter, China is particularly successful as its clean technology industry
experienced a remarkable development. The solar photovoltaic (PV) module
producing industry, including companies like Suntech, JA Solar and Yingli, is
extremely prosperous with double digit growth rates since 2000 (REN21,
2011, IEA, 2010). After producing only 3 MW in 2000, Chinas solar PV panel
industry became the largest global producer, making 10,852 MW in 2010,
which accounted for 45 percent of world production in 2010 (Algieri et al.,
2011, EPI, 2011). Chinas wind turbine production also experienced a similar
rapid growth. Companies such as Sinovel, Goldwind, Dangfang and Ming Yang
increased their production from USD 26 million in 2003 to USD 104 million in
2005, building a supply capacity of 17 gigawatt; some 41 percent of the
global market (Caprotti, 2009, BTMConsult, 2011). At the same time, the
Chinese government increased its efforts to close a knowledge gap to
developed countries by increasing its research and development (R&D)
spending on renewable energies and energy efficiency as well as by
introducing numerous policies to support indigenous innovation and attract
foreign knowledge. Yet, as this paper will highlight that the local market for
renewable energy technologies components in China remained small until
recently, with electricity generation from renewable sources contributing only
a marginal share to total electricity generation. Consequently, the largest
share of solar PV and wind energy equipment production is exported - to only
a few high-income countries and China became the largest exporter of solar
PV modules and a major exporter of wind energy technology components
(WETC).

The plan trades off with Chinas leadership of renewable


energy exports and development itll collapse the CCP
and turns case
Denlinger 10
(Paul, China markets and technology consultant for Forbes, Why China Has
To Dominate Green Tech, Forbes, July 20,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2010/07/20/why-china-has-to-dominategreen-tech/)
China just passed a new milestone: it consumes more energy than the United States,
which had been the world leader ever since energy consumption started to be measured. Twenty years

ago, such a milestone would have been marked with unabashed pride, but in todays energy-conscious

From now on, when it comes to global warming,


pollution and related issues, China will no longer be able to hide behind its claims of being a
developing nation. On the policy level, the Chinese government has to perform a
delicate balancing act, it has to balance the desire of many Chinese to live a Western lifestyle,
world, it is not a good threshold.

together with its high energy consumption and waste, with the need to preserve the environment, since

China, and the world, would suffer enormous damage if 1.3 billion people got
all their energy needs from coal and oil , the two most widely used fossil fuels. Chinas
political and social stability depends on finding the right balance, since the
party has an implicit mandate: it will deliver economic growth to the Chinese people.
This is why the Chinese government has chosen to invest in developing new
green energy technology. The country is very fortunate in that most of the discovered deposits of
rare earths used in the development of new technologies are found in China. While these deposits are very
valuable, up until recently, the industry has not been regulated much by the Chinese central government.
But now that Beijing is aware of their importance and value, it has come under much closer scrutiny. For
one, Beijing wants to consolidate the industry and lower energy waste and environmental damage.
(Ironically, the rare earth mining business is one of the most energy-wasteful and highly polluting

Beijing wants to cut


back rare earth exports to the rest of the world , instead encouraging domestic
production into wind and solar products for export around the world . With
patents on the new technology used in manufacturing, China would control the
industries around. Think Chinese coal mining with acid.) At the same time,

intellectual property and licensing on the products that would be used all over the world. If Beijing is able

would control the next generation of energy products used by the


world for the next century. That is the plan . It would be like if the oil-producing nations in
to do this, it

the 1920s and 1930s said that they didnt need Western oil exploration firms and refineries to distribute oil
products; they would do all the processing themselves, and the Western countries would just order the
finished oil products from them. This is how China obviously plans to keep most of the value-added profits
within Chinas borders. Before any Western readers snap into evil Chinese conspiracy to take over the
world mode, its worth pointing out that Chinese rare earth experts and government officials have
repeatedly warned Western visitors that this policy change would be introduced. Unfortunately, these
warnings have gone largely unheeded and ignored by the Western media and politicians who, it seems,
have been largely preoccupied by multiple financial crises and what to do about the Wests debt load.

The debt crisis in the West means that it is very hard for Western green
energy companies to find financing for their technologies , then to market them as
finished products. New energy technologies are highly risky, and initial investments
are by no means guaranteed. Because they are considered high-risk and
require high capital expenditure (unlike Internet technologies which are very cheap and
practically commoditized), banks are reluctant to finance them unless they are able to find
government-secured financing. Because most U.S. banks are recapitalizing their businesses after the debt
bubble burst, there are very few, if any western banks who will finance new green energy technologies.

This has opened a window of opportunity for the Chinese government to


finance, and for Chinese technology companies to develop, then manufacture
these new green products. But just making these technologies is not enough;
they need to be competitive against traditional fossil fuels . When it comes to the
amount of energy released when coal or oil is burned, the new green technologies are still way behind.
This means that, at least in the early stages of adoption, Chinese businesses will still be reliant on coal and
oil to bridge that energy chasm before the new energy technologies become economically competitive.

Much depends on how much the Chinese government is willing to spend to


promote and incentivize these new technologies, first in China, then
overseas. Because of Chinas growing energy demands, we are in a race for
survival. The 21st century will be remembered as the resurgent coal and oil
century, or as the century humanity transitioned to green technologies for

energy consumption. While China is investing heavily now in green tech, it is


still consuming ever larger amounts of coal and oil to drive its economic
growth. Right now, we all depend on Chinas success to make the transition to
green energy this century. For all practical purposes, were all in the same boat.

Perception of energy containment causes regional lashout


to appease hardliners
Kreft, Ambassador and Special Representative for
Dialogue among Civilizations and Public Diplomacy at the
German Foreign Ministry, 2006
(Heinrich, Chinas Quest for Energy, Policy Review, October 1,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7941)

If energy issues are not dealt with by constructive cooperation, or if


cooperation fails, the risk is high that they will become a source of
competition, misperceptions, mistrust, and excuses for obstructing one
anothers interests. If Beijing believes that the U.S. and others are trying to
use energy politics as a means to contain China, then it should not be
surprising that it will be trying to use its growing energy influence to
undermine Western foreign and security policies. This could include
increasing hoarding of oil and gas fields and supplies, even closer ties to
and ever more investments in pariah states, the promotion of security
cooperation with anti-Western governments, and possibly a politization of
global energy markets. Such an environment could very well increase the
influence of hard-liners within the Chinese leadership who perceive the U.S.
as a threat to Chinas rise and want to increase military strength and in
particular develop blue water capabilities in order to challenge the U.S.
control of the sea lanes of communications through which Chinas growing
imports of oil (and LNG) are flowing and generally decrease American
influence in the region. Such a move would greatly concern other Asian
powers from Japan and South Korea in Northeast Asia, over the ASEAN
countries in the Southeast, to India in South Asia. Not only an arms race, but
a wide range of negative outcomes could be imagined.

Internal Links
Growth key to prevent CCP instability- causes internal
chaos, war over the East and South China Seas, and
Taiwan
Zegart, co-director of Stanford Universitys Center for
International Security and Cooperation and a senior fellow
at the Hoover Institution, 2014
(Amy, June 20th, Should the US Be Bullish or Bearish on Chinas Rise?,
http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/20/should-america-bebullish-or-bearish-on-chinas-rise/, accessed 7/8/14, LLM)
Peering within, though, we see a fragile China. This is scary, too. China
spends more money on its internal security than it does on defense. The
regime, above all, has to worry about defending itself from its own people. As
many have noted, Chinas leadership faces a serious dilemma: If economic
growth slows, its primary pillar of legitimacy may start to crumble. On
the other hand, if growth continues, the political system will likely need to be
reformed to deal with profound economic and social changes that include a
rapidly aging population that is a ticking demographic time bomb; a severe
inequality gap, particularly between rural and urban areas; rampant
environmental degradation; widespread corruption; and weak central control
over provincial and local governments. Today, already half a billion netizens
are on the internet discussing topics that were unthinkable even a few years
ago. Time, it appears, is not on the regimes side. What does all of this mean
for U.S. foreign policy? Three things. First, American policymakers would be
wise to anticipate the prospect of instability in China. Chinas rise is less
inevitable than it appears, and the Chinese Communist Partys stability is
more tenuous than it seems. Chinas domestic weakness could ultimately
prove more destabilizing and dangerous externally than its current strength;
the tried and true strategy to shore up support at home is to stoke
nationalism by demonizing and engaging enemies abroad. Vladimir Putins
recent moves in Ukraine illustrate all too well the risks of this dangerous mix
of domestic politics and foreign policy, and the difficulty of inoculating even
nascent democratic societies from its effects. In particular, if Chinas rise
sputters, territorial disputes over who has sovereignty in the East and South
China Seas are likely to grow worse, not better. And thats to say nothing of
the future of Taiwan.

Slowing growth would cause massive ethnic unrest and


collapse the CCP. Growth now is also key to continued
economic and political liberalization and checking
nationalism.
Croucher, business and financial analyst for International
Business Time UK, 6-4-14
(Shane, June 4, 2014, Tiananmen Square 25th Anniversary: Can Prosperity
and Xi Jinping Reforms Prevent 'China Spring'?,
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tiananmen-square-25th-anniversary-can-prosperityxi-jinping-reforms-prevent-china-spring-1451099)

A quarter of a century on from the Tiananmen Square massacre, everything and


nothing has changed in China. When the students took to the square in demonstrations that
spread across the vast Asian state before they were murderously quelled by the authorities, the angry

China is scarcely more


democratic now than it was on 4 June, 1989. But it is increasingly prosperous. The
youth-led movement was demanding a democratic and prosperous future.

world's second largest economy and soon to be the biggest, China is seeing rapid growth in wealth and
incomes. There has been a proliferation of billionaires and the West looks lustfully at their bulging wallets.

Even the agricultural poor are gradually being lifted out of poverty as the magnet of
urbanisation pulls them in to sprawling cities. And to show the masses that the
Communist Party of China is committed to change, President Xi Jinping unveiled
sweeping reforms to the Chinese economic, financial and social system. Yet
there is still much dissent. The Chinese secret police and security services have managed to
keep a lid on this boiling soup of discontent. It occasionally spills out in the provinces with protests and
acts of civil disobedience, sometimes against the endemic local corruption in China's bloated bureaucracy,

fractured, localised disputes have not yet


morphed into a national movement. On Weibo, China's answer to Facebook and Twitter,
sometimes over ethnic tensions. These

grumbling and criticism is allowed about such issues. But state censors stand sentry, deleting any posts

China embraces greater trade and financial


ties with the West; as the pistons of industrialisation thunder on; as the political elite
promise reforms is all this enough to prevent another Tiananmen? China's
reaction to the 25th anniversary of the massacre an event not officially recognised suggests the
authorities are still fearful of the power of the protestors' message. "As in previous
that attempt to arrange protest meetings. As

years, they rounded up activists and lawyers. What surprised us is how soon they started this time and the
incredible scope and depth of the people they have been cracking down on," William Nees, a Hong Kongbased China researcher for human rights organisation Amnesty International, tells IBTimes UK. "What we
are seeing really is one of the largest crackdowns, certainly Tiananmen-related crackdowns, in recent

China's leadership faces a troubling paradox. To justify itself, the


system and those who control it need increasing economic prosperity for the
masses. But the better off Chinese people become, the greater the political and social freedom they will
demand. Jinping reforms There was a big announcement at the conclusion of a four-day conclave of
the ruling Communist Party's leaders in November 2013. An agenda for reform in China
was unveiled. Bringing China into the twenty-first century is a focus of Jinping, who took office in
Mach 2013. He has promised "market forces" will be central to China's future.
Under the reforms Jinping will steward, China will scythe through its tangling red
tape, make it easier for foreign firms to invest, loosen the rules around its one child policy,
years."

abolish the labour camp system, and crack down on the rotting influence of
corruption, among many other measures. Work is already underway to liberalise the
tightly-controlled Chinese yuan, also known as renminbi, with London vying to become the currency's
Western hub for trading. Xi Jinping Xinjiang Terrorism China's President Xi JinpingReuters And Jinping is
leading a vast crackdown on corruption in business, with a number of high-profile graft investigations, the
most well-known of which surrounding British pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline. "These reforms
were necessary and something that we've been hoping to happen for some time," Dr Reza Hasmath, a

China's
growth rate is actually decreasing and reforms were something that had to be
accomplished." Growth in the first quarter of 2014 slowed to 7.4% compared with 7.7% in the
China expert at the University of Oxford, tells IBTimes UK. "The issue at hand here is that

previous three months. And this is far slower than the 8.8% annual GDP growth reported in the same

The government is consciously trying to stabilise Chinese


economic growth from its current unsustainably rapid pace , which relies heavily on
fiscal stimulus in areas such as infrastructure. "Usually there is a correlation between growth
and discontent. And so when growth decreases we see a rise in discontent ," says
quarter a year before.

Hasmath. "The way you measure discontent is you see protests or grumblings on social media and so

The party is acutely aware of this and so that's why they actually need to have other
The regime wants a better-educated, urbanised population with
an economy built more on service sector foundations. Its reforms programme
will help this happen, but there is a risk to political stability from the resulting
inequality. "What you're going to find here is greater haves and have nots," Hasmath says. "And that's
where the discontent is going to occur. The have nots are going to be in the
rural areas. They're the ones the party needs to be quite aware of. Ironically enough, that's where the
forth.

forms of growth."

party's greater base has been from." Minzhu There has already been a remarkable increase in disposable
income for the Chinese after years of its growing trade with the rest of the world. The country's National
Bureau of Statistics says it grew from 10,493 yuan ($1,734, 1,045, 1,270) in 2006 to 24,565 in 2012.
That is a 134% leap. And the Hurun Rich List said there were 314 dollar billionaires, up from none in 2013.

If the latest reforms come off, they should further improve the lives of many
Chinese citizens, who will become wealthier and more economically free . But
there is noticeably little said in the reforms about arguably the single most-important freedom, minzhu or
democracy. Tiananmen Square Students protest on June 4, 1989, in Tiananmen SquareReuters China is
still now, and will remain as, a one-party authoritarian state that allows little freedom of expression and
political dissent against the Communist Party hegemony. " They're

hoping that their economic


reforms will give them the prosperity needed to hold off political criticism. It's
kind of worked so far. It's worked to an extent over the last 25 years, but most economists tend to
agree that we'll see lower rates of economic growth," says Amnesty's Nees. "At the same time, a lot of the
middle class especially the upper-middle class will be able to go abroad where you can of course access
all sorts of free information, so the controls on ideology will be a lot less effective in future. "And I think a
lot of people who have perhaps had much more basic demands in terms of being able to have a decent job
and be able to eat the demands you might associate with dire poverty once those are more or less
alleviated and addressed then people will start to deal with a more higher-level demand. "So there's
fairness, and justice, and being able to practice their religious faiths without interference. I think these are
different demands that are much harder for the government to address using their traditional toolbox."

For the majority ethnic Hans, a healthy economy trumps


political rights. So if the ruling party can keep the Asian powerhouse's engine
running, it will likely drown out the threat to its governance by pro-democracy
and human rights campaigners. But other ethnic groups, namely the Uighurs in
Xinjiang province and the Tibetans, have not fared as well economically as the Hans.
These tensions, building over time, are now exploding and are a concerning risk to the
communists' rule. In one extreme example, around 200 people died in ethnic clashes in 2009 on
Tibet and Xinjiang

the streets of Urumqi, Xianjing. They were ostensibly protesting against central government repression of
Uighur religious and culture, but there is more than this fuelling the unrest. " Ultimately, what you're
finding here is that

the Uighurs and Tibetans are not doing as well as Hans are. And

so they are turning to religion, to greater ethnic consciousness, and that kind of
thing has flashed up in violence across these areas," the University of Oxford's Hasmath says.
"There's religious repression of course, but these things are spurred on more by socioeconomic reasons. The party realises this." The government is targeting
economic support into these flashpoints in the hope that financial medicine
will cure the social ills and so soften the political threat from different ethnic
groups. "They're hoping and they're praying that you can actually target those ethnic groups who are
not doing well, because that's one of the major reasons for uncertainty," Hasmath says. Every so
often, Chinese rulers will lift the lid off of the pot to stop it from boiling over.
These little releases of pressure seem to be enough each time, but the fire keeping the
pot hot still burns in the longer-term. It will only take one lapse in attention for the pot
to boil over. Unless they turn the heat down with democratic reforms alongside the country's economic
transformation, the prospect of another Tiananmen Square uprising is more than just
party officials' paranoia.

Chinese economic decline causes CCP collapse


Weng, Associate Professor in the School of Diplomacy and
International Relations at Seton Hall University, 2013
(Zheng September 4th, 2013, How Chinas Economic Rebalancing is like the
Movie Speed, The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/china-power/howchinas-economic-rebalancing-is-like-the-movie-speed/, accessed 7/17/14 LLM)
How many remember the Hollywood film, Speed, starring Keanu Reeves and
Sandra Bullock? In the movie, Reeves character must keep the Los Angeles
bus he is driving above 50 miles per hour to prevent the bomb a disgruntled
former bomb squad sergeant has planted from going off and killing everyone
on board.

The Chinese economy is currently like that bus in that it must stay above a
certain speed. To fall below a set national growth rate will set off the bomb
that is attached to the Chinese economy.

Beijing sets a strict growth rate for its economy called the red line
(hongxian). Under Premier Wen Jiabao, the red line was usually around 8
percent annual growth. Recently, however, this rate was lowered to 7.5
percent. Regardless if it is 8 or 7.5 percent, it is an unthinkably high rate for
most countries in the world. Maintaining such a high speed is to prove
especially difficult for China, though, given that it is now the worlds number
two economy. Beijing is therefore playing a very dangerous game indeed.

In China, growth rates have never been solely an economic issue. The growth
rate is closely related to employment, employment with social stability, and
social stability with political stability. Given the social and political
implications of the unemployment rate, and the fact that China is endowed
with a massive population, it should not be surprising that the Chinese
government considers maintaining robust employment as its number one
priority.

Under Mao, and indeed through the middle of the 1980s, about 80 percent of
Chinas population lived in the countryside. Low living standards meant that
many struggled for everyday survival, but they did not have as many social
stability problems because people did not move around the country.

Since Chinas reform and opening up policy was instituted, and Beijing joined
the WTO, millions of Chinese have left the countryside for employment in
cities along the more prosperous coast. Living in these cities also has raised
peoples expectations for life and work, making it hard for them to fathom
ever returning to the countryside to farm. An exodus back to the countryside
is further complicated by the fact that many rural migrants in China have had
their former land plots seized by Chinese authorities to make way for new
highways, express train railways and giant factories.

So an economic slowdown in China today may generate social problems, such


as unemployment, inflation, and social unrest. Only if China can maintain its
high growth rate can it continue to meet the masses expectations for
employment and living standards.

Despite regime tactics of control, economic growth is key


to prevent nationalism and CCP instability
Barber, doctoral candidate at the University of Auckland,
specializing in the history of international arbitration and
the development of globalization, commerce, and trade,
6-10-14
(Christopher, China: Wealth and Democracy Will Western levels of income
mean that China adopts Western models of democracy?,
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/china-wealth-and-democracy/, accessed
7/8/14, LLM)
the Communist Party will collapse and democracy will eventually triumph in China is
stands as a harmonizing and unifying force
in Chinese society a far more important consideration for the middle class given the painful
The idea that

a grave misreading of the situation. The party

legacy of Chinas historical fragmentation in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Indeed, it stands

if the CCP succeeds in elevating China into the echelons of the


high income bracket, then conversely it will act as a powerful legitimating device
for the regime. If anything, Chinese nationalism serves as a far more popular discourse in mainstream
to reason that

society; whether it is populist anger at Japan or the huge crowds that flock daily to watch the flag raising

In terms of maintaining harmony, nationalism can be


a double-edged sword for the CCP. Displays of patriotism can help to maintain unity and assist
in diverting the populations attention from pressing domestic issues. Yet at the same time, zealous
nationalism can be harmful to Chinas international image and threaten to
undercut its peaceful rise narrative. Nationalism, like all things in China,
needs to be carefully stage managed in order to prevent it from causing
social instability. Stage management and social stability are the keywords in
the CCPs lexicon of governance. Beijing is learning to account for its actions to its people. For
ceremony in Tiananmen Square.

instance, recent worries about the capital citys rising levels of air pollution have made the authorities
more aware of environmental matters. Policy changes aimed at dealing with the issue of air pollution
demonstrate the ability of the government to shift resources in order to troubleshoot popular issues.

Thus, given the governments sensitivity towards public opinion , considered


political change over the coming years or decades, depending on the boldness of party
leadership, is quite likely. Whether this will take the form of an empowered National Peoples
Congress, more inclusive decision-making at the party level, or greater democracy at the local level only

The CCP, though, is no house of cards; as Eric X. Li writes in Foreign Affairs, Beijing is more
CCPs adaptability,
system of meritocracy, and legitimacy with the Chinese people. That in no way assures the
CCPs future survivability as in any political system, changing socioeconomic contexts invariably influences political regimes . But even if the regime
time will tell.

than able to meet the countrys ills with dynamism and resilience, thanks to the

loses its communist faade in place of a more democratic model, there is no suggestion that the elites or
the red nobility that act as the invisible state will be displaced from positions of authority. Indeed, very
few revolutions or changes to the status quo are quite as radical as people tend to think. Pragmatic elites
invariably negotiate with the changing times so that it appears that the political arrangement has
changed. Reform is easy, elitism and dynasty are much harder commodities to flush out of the system. The
fact that China has a huge income inequality gap already shows that in the event of a post-communist

the
West should watch Chinas political stability with a high degree of caution .
While liberal political reforms are desperately needed to improve the human rights situation in China , a
radical rupture in the political system could signal an uncertain future for
China and the world.
meltdown there will be elites ready to step into the breach just like the oligarchs in Russia. Thus,

Economic growth key to CCP and Chinese stability- its a


delicate balancing act
Denlinger, Chinese Market Consultant for Forbes, 2010
(Paul, July 10th, 2010, Why China Has To Dominate Green Tech,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2010/07/20/why-china-has-to-dominategreen-tech/, accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
China just passed a new milestone: it consumes more energy than the United
States, which had been the world leader ever since energy consumption
started to be measured. Twenty years ago, such a milestone would have been
marked with unabashed pride, but in todays energy-conscious world, it is not
a good threshold. From now on, when it comes to global warming, pollution

and related issues, China will no longer be able to hide behind its claims of
being a developing nation.

On the policy level, the Chinese government has to perform a delicate


balancing act, it has to balance the desire of many Chinese to live a Western
lifestyle, together with its high energy consumption and waste, with the need
to preserve the environment, since China, and the world, would suffer
enormous damage if 1.3 billion people got all their energy needs from coal
and oil, the two most widely used fossil fuels. Chinas political and social
stability depends on finding the right balance, since the party has an
implicit mandate: it will deliver economic growth to the Chinese people.

This is why the Chinese government has chosen to invest in developing new
green energy technology.

The country is very fortunate in that most of the discovered deposits of rare
earths used in the development of new technologies are found in China.
While these deposits are very valuable, up until recently, the industry has not
been regulated much by the Chinese central government. But now that
Beijing is aware of their importance and value, it has come under much closer
scrutiny. For one, Beijing wants to consolidate the industry and lower energy
waste and environmental damage. (Ironically, the rare earth mining business
is one of the most energy-wasteful and highly polluting industries around.
Think Chinese coal mining with acid.)

At the same time, Beijing wants to cut back rare earth exports to the rest of
the world, instead encouraging domestic production into wind and solar
products for export around the world. With patents on the new technology
used in manufacturing, China would control the intellectual property and
licensing on the products that would be used all over the world. If Beijing is
able to do this, it would control the next generation of energy products used
by the world for the next century.

That is the plan. It would be like if the oil-producing nations in the 1920s
and 1930s said that they didnt need Western oil exploration firms and
refineries to distribute oil products; they would do all the processing
themselves, and the Western countries would just order the finished oil
products from them. This is how China obviously plans to keep most of the
value-added profits within Chinas borders.

Before any Western readers snap into evil Chinese conspiracy to take over
the world mode, its worth pointing out that Chinese rare earth experts and
government officials have repeatedly warned Western visitors that this policy
change would be introduced. Unfortunately, these warnings have gone
largely unheeded and ignored by the Western media and politicians who, it
seems, have been largely preoccupied by multiple financial crises and what
to do about the Wests debt load.

The debt crisis in the West means that it is very hard for Western green
energy companies to find financing for their technologies, then to market
them as finished products. New energy technologies are highly risky, and
initial investments are by no means guaranteed. Because they are considered
high-risk and require high capital expenditure (unlike Internet technologies
which are very cheap and practically commoditized), banks are reluctant to
finance them unless they are able to find government-secured financing.
Because most U.S. banks are recapitalizing their businesses after the debt
bubble burst, there are very few, if any western banks who will finance new
green energy technologies.

This has opened a window of opportunity for the Chinese government to


finance, and for Chinese technology companies to develop, then manufacture
these new green products. But just making these technologies is not enough;
they need to be competitive against traditional fossil fuels. When it comes to
the amount of energy released when coal or oil is burned, the new green
technologies are still way behind. This means that, at least in the early stages
of adoption, Chinese businesses will still be reliant on coal and oil to bridge
that energy chasm before the new energy technologies become economically
competitive. Much depends on how much the Chinese government is willing
to spend to promote and incentivize these new technologies, first in China,
then overseas.

Because of Chinas growing energy demands, we are in a race for survival.


The 21st century will be remembered as the resurgent coal and oil century, or
as the century humanity transitioned to green technologies for energy
consumption. While China is investing heavily now in green tech, it is still
consuming ever larger amounts of coal and oil to drive its economic growth.
Right now, we all depend on Chinas success to make the transition to green
energy this century.

For all practical purposes, were all in the same boat.

Impact - General
CCP instability triggers a nuclear civil war and regional
conflicts that escalate
Yee, politics and international relations professor and
Hong Kong Baptist University, and Storey, Defense
professor at Deakin University, 2002 (Herbert and Ian, April 11th,
2002, Routledge publisher, The China Threat: Perceptions, Myths and
Reality, pg 5, InformaWorld)
The fourth factor contributing to the perception of a China threat is the fear
of political and economic collapse in the PRC, resulting in territorial
fragmentation, civil war and waves of refugees pouring into
neighbouring countries. Naturally, any or all of these scenarios would
have a profoundly negative impact on regional stability. Today the
Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal problems, including the
increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a
shortage of natural resources and a deterioration in the natural
environment caused by rapid industrialisation and pollution. These
problems are putting a strain on the central government's ability to govern
effectively. Political disintegration or a Chinese civil war might
result in millions of Chinese refugees seeking asylum in
neighbouring countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees
from a collapsed PRC would no doubt put a severe strain on the limited
resources of China's neighbours. A fragmented China could also result
in another nightmare scenario - nuclear weapons falling into the
hands of irresponsible local provincial leaders or warlords.'2 From
this perspective, a disintegrating China would also pose a threat to
its neighbours and the world.

CCP instability causes chemical biological and nuclear


war- causes extinction
Rexing, Staff Reporter for the Epoch Times, 2005
(San, The CCPs Last Ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War,
http://english.epochtimes.com/ news/5-8-5/30975.html)
Since the Partys life is above all else, it would not be surprising if
the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear
weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards
human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans,
along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its
ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil
filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its
desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.

This theme is murderous and utterly evil. In China we have seen beggars who
coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab themselves with
knives or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now,
seen such a gangster who would use biological, chemical, and
nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that all will die together with
him. This bloody confession has confirmed the CCPs nature: that of
a monstrous murderer who has killed 80 million Chinese people and
who now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with
their lives.

AT: Lower Prices


Lowering prices doesnt prevent the link, it makes it
worse. Central planning creates a lag between market
prices and output prices.
Swanson, Chinese Political and Economic Analyst for the
Wall Street Selector, 2012
(Ryan, Can Xi Jinping Tackley Chinas Energy Challenges, March 26, Wall
Street Sector Selector, http://wallstreetsectorselector.com/2012/03/can-xijinping-tackle-chinas-energy-challenges-part-two-fxi-chie-gex-ung-kol/#)

The case of shale gas reflects broader institutional challenges facing Chinas
energy sector (NYSEARCA:CHIE). In the absence of free markets, the Chinese
(NYSEARCA:FXI) central government uses pricing mechanisms to control the
supply of coal (NYSEARCA:KOL), electricity, gas (NYSEARCA:UNG), and water
mechanisms which, according to the World Bank, must be reformed if
robust green development (NYSEARCA:GEX) is to occur. Electricity prices, for
example, do not reflect the cost of generation and transmission, rather they
are set by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) to
comply with government policy and social goals. Different wholesale prices
are set for different generation sources (i.e., coal, hydro, wind, and solar).
Retail prices are also differentiated where rates for heavy industry,
agriculture, and residents are heavily subsidized, while commercial and
selected industrial customers pay much more. Within these rigid pricing
mechanisms, the most efficient and profitable power plants are not rewarded,
as many are only allotted a set amount of operating hours per year. Analysts
at E3, a San Francisco-based energy consulting firm, argue that given Chinas
centrally-planned pricing and dispatch system, it is not clear how natural gas
plants (NYSEARCA:UNG), which typically have higher variability in operating
hours and face highly volatile gas prices, would be able to recover their
costs. Thus, Chinas(NYSEARCA:FXI) largely centrally planned electricity
system hinders the introduction of natural gas power plants and frustrates
private sector investment. About a decade ago, China unbundled its State
Power Corporation, a vertically-integrated electric utility monopoly, into
generation, transmission, and distribution companies and founded the State
Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) to regulate the electricity sector.
One problem, though, is that SERC does not have the authority to act as an
effective regulator, as the approval, planning, and ratemaking powers for the
electricity sector reside in the NDRC, Chinas chief economic planning
commission. State-owned enterprises, including the State Grid Corporation of
China, are also more powerful than SERC, posing challenges to SERCs ability
to enforce its own rules. In effect, despite Chinas attempts to unbundle its

monopoly and regulate, its electricity sector remains government owned and
run with a powerless regulator.

AT: Co-Op

Theres no chance of cooperation on energy, nationalists


and hardliners see US energy expansion as economic
containment
DeLisle, Director of FPRIs Asia Program, 2012
(Jacques and the Stephen Cozen Professor of Law and Political Science at the
University of Pennsylvania, October of 2012, Conference Report: Energy,
Environment, and Security in Asia, Foreign Policy Research Institute,
October, https://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/10/conference-report-energyenvironment-and-security-asia)

Despite the energy-related and broader foreign policy reasons for pursuing
cooperation (including Chinas desire to be seen as a responsible stakeholder
in the international system), many formidable obstacles remain to U.S.-China
collaboration on clean energy. The U.S.s market-capitalist system and
Chinas state-capitalist systems do not mesh well in tackling many problems,
including clean energy technology development. Mutual mistrust and
genuinely conflicting interests characterize much of the political relationship
and the upcoming U.S. election and Chinese leadership transition entail risks
of increased misperception and provocation. Events and shocks often get in
the way of potential collaboration: the Global Financial Crisis distracted
policymakers from environmental issues and increased emphasis on growth
by any means; the failure of the Copenhagen environmental conference
scuttled near-term hopes for an international accord that would encourage
green energy development; and recurrent frictions in U.S.-China relations
generally (such as those over Tibet, arms sales to Taiwan, renminbi valuation,
and sanctions on Iran) have posed chronic obstacles. Key clean energy
sectorsincluding wind and solarhave been the loci of conflicts between
China and the U.S., as well as Europe. For example, leading European
companies in the wind power sector saw their market share in China plummet
in favor of Chinese producers who had benefited from European cooperation
and Chinas new WTO-noncompliant domestic content requirements. For
another example, solar power has made little headway in Chinas domestic
market even as Chinese firms have come to dominate the world market in
solar panels, thanks partly to Chinese state support for producers and the
U.S.s and other developed states subsidies to support solar panel
installation. Chinas wind power and solar power policies have both become
targets of WTO disputes targeting China. Rozman argued that the
impediments to U.S.-China cooperation are still more fundamental and
intractable. Fundamentally, Chinas strategic thinking is based in its

assessment that the international balance of power is shifting in its favor and
against the United States. Chinas approach reflects the impact of its
geopolitical calculations and a national identity laced with strident
nationalism. Although the fall of Bo Xilai as a potential member of the top
leadership was a setback for relative hardliners in domestic politics and
foreign policy (including relations with the U.S.), his political demise did not
portend an end to the influence of such views. Even if the U.S. and China can
avoid mutual demonization, the two countries have genuine differences in
priorities, including on matters that are related to or affect clean energy
cooperation. In this context, prospects remained dim for transformative U.S.China cooperation in a potentially sensitive issue area such as green energy.

AFF

Uniqueness
Chinese import demand will fall while US and others will
stay competitive
Lin, Technology and Information Analyst, 6-26-14
(Corrine, June 26th, Solar makers to expand production capacity; pricing to be
affected by Chinese market demands,
http://pv.energytrend.com/research/20140626-6967.html, accessed 7/18/14,
LLM)
Contrary to PV manufacturers high utilization rates spurred by UK and Japan
market demands in first quarter of 2014, pricing in the PV industry is likely to
drop in the following quarter, according to EnergyTrend, a subsidiary of
Taiwan-based market intelligence firm TrendForce. The research organization
attributed ongoing countervailing duty (CVD) and anti-dumping duty (AD)
issues between U.S., China, and Taiwan as the main cause behind the decline,
and noted PV shipments were mostly focused on the U.S. market, while
shipments have eased in other markets.

Solar PV supply chains are starting to see demand in China whither, while
demand in the U.S. and Japan remain stable, said EnergyTrend Research
Manager Jason Huang. As such trends occur, solar supply chains are
nevertheless expected to increase production capacity in the second half of
2014, which means Chinese market demands will play a major role in terms
of global solar PV pricing and volume. If demands in China remain at around
10-12GW then manufacturers in the PV supply chain can balance out orders
in conjunction with their new capacity. However, if Chinese market demands
are lower than expected coupled with uncertainties surrounding CVD and AD
issues, the PV market still risks oversupply and hence declined prices.

Theres no market demand for China


Ren, Market Analyst for Emerging Market Daily, 5-15-14
(Shuli, May 15th, China Solar: Policy Headwind, 1H Demand Collapse, Says
Deutsche,
http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2014/05/15/china-solarpolicy-headwind-1h-demand-collapse-says-deutsche/, accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
Almost half way into 2014, there is little clarity on Beijings intentions with
the solar industry.

Optimism was running high late last year, with analysts and industry insiders
anticipating a 14GW target for 2014. But investors now realize the

governments goal of 6GW utility projects and 8GW distributed projects is


unattainable, because there is not enough financing for the distributed
projects.

Year-to-date, Yingli Green Energy (YGE) slumped 42%. Trina Solar (TSL) fell
22%. Jinko Solar (JKS) retreated 14.9%. Canadian Solar (CSIQ) fell 14.3%. JA
Solar (JASO), the least leveraged among the Chinese solar names, fared the
best, gaining 2.6%.

In the first half this year, demand has collapsed, according to a report
published by Deutsche Bank today. Its analysts Vishal Shah, Jerimiah
Booream-Phelps, and Susie Min estimate demand in China to have declined
from around 6GW in the fourth-quarter last year to 1GW in the first quarter,
and the Chinese solar companies they spoke to expect the second-quarter to
reach 3-4GW only.

Demand from the distributed projects segment remains weak. None of the
companies Deutsche spoke with expect distributed segment to reach the
8GW target. 2GW is a more realistic goal.

Demand will dry up now- overcapacity means the market


will fail like in previous EU countries
Zhu, Energy and Political Analyst for Reuters, 1-23-14
(Charlie, January 23rd, China's solar industry rebounds, but will boom-bust
cycle repeat?, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-china-solaridUSBREA0M1VJ20140123, accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
(Reuters) - China's solar panel industry is showing signs of booming again
after a prolonged downturn - raising fears of another bust when the splurge of
public money that is driving a spike in demand dries up.

Lured by generous power tariffs and financing support to promote renewable


energy, Chinese firms are racing to develop multi-billion dollar solar
generating projects in the Gobi desert and barren hills of China's vast north
and northwest.

The sweeteners have not only lured traditional energy investors like China
Power Investment Corp, but also a host of solar panel makers and even
companies such as toll road operator Huabei Express and Jiangsu Kuangda
Auto Textile Group.

Some solar panel manufacturers, encouraged by a recovery in sales in the


last two quarters - largely on surging demand from China and Japan - are
expanding production capacity, even though the overall sector remains mired
in a severe glut.

But industry officials worry fast-growing generation capacity will increase


fiscal pressures on China and Japan and force them to cut subsidies which will
then hit demand, just as happened with previous big solar users Germany,
Spain and Italy.

"The key is whether the Chinese government is determined enough to boost


solar generation," Sun Haiyan, senior executive at Trina Solar, said when
asked if the current solar expansion in China was sustainable.

China already boasts solar manufacturing capacity of about 45 gigawatts


(GW), enough to meet global demand this year.

Trina Solar, JinkoSolar, Yingli Green Energy and Canadian Solar - among the
world's largest solar manufacturers that also include Japan's Sharp Corp and
U.S. SunPower Corp - are adding 3 GW of capacity, according to industry
specialists and Chinese media.

Beijing is trying to consolidate the sector and force out the legion of small
"zombie plants" currently sitting idle, but analysts say it faces stiff resistance
from indebted regional and city governments that have backed local solar
champions.

Michael Barker, analyst at global solar research firm Solarbuzz, said a risk
now faced by the solar panel industry was manufacturers may react to
improved demand "with somewhat irrational exuberance".

"This could upset the stabilization process that has occurred during the past
year, once again creating an overcapacity situation," he wrote in a note this
week.

Link
Not key to growth, China makes virtually nothing from
solar exports
Mufson, Energy and Finance Analyst for the Washington
Post, 2011
(Steven, December 16th, Chinas growing share of solar market comes at a
price, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/chinas-growingshare-of-solar-market-comes-at-a-price/2011/11/21/gIQAhPRWyO_story.html,
accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
Countries like China are playing to win in the solar industry, Chu said.

My big thing is that I worry about China, said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Calif.).

The Chinese are eating our lunch, said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.).

Yet if Chinese solar companies are eating our lunch, theyre also choking on
it. Growth in global solar manufacturing capacity is outpacing global demand,
and prices of solar energy products are plunging. And while U.S. politicians
portray Chinese firms as heavily subsidized rivals gobbling up global market
share, Chinese solar companies are suffering from some of the same ills
afflicting their U.S. competitors.

Some of Chinas biggest companies are losing money, shelving capital


expenditure plans and looking to conserve dwindling reserves of cash. To
avoid going deeper into debt, they have borrowed only a tiny fraction of $34
billion in loans available to them from the China Development Bank.

For consumers, the cutthroat competition is a good thing. Wholesale solar


panel prices have dropped as much as 50 percent this year, and retail prices
are less than half what they were five years ago. Industry experts say that
the day is near when solar can compete against other energy sources without
subsidies. In certain places and at certain times of day, its already viable.
Meanwhile, analysts say, if China wants to subsidize solar products,
Americans can buy more of them.

For some U.S. companies, Chinas expanding industry has meant more jobs.
Cheap panels fuel greater sales and installation accounts for more than
half of U.S. solar industry jobs.

Moreover, the United States has a trade surplus with China in solar goods, led
by exports of polysilicon, the raw material needed to make photovoltaic cells,
which in turn are the building blocks for solar panels.

The United States also exports the solar manufacturing machinery. Applied
Materials, which made its name in the semiconductor business, beat analysts
expectations earlier this year thanks to sales of equipment for making solar
cells. To promote sales, the Santa Clara, Calif., company has set up a research
center in the Chinese city of Xian and moved its chief technology officer
there. Now we are doing for the green economy what we did for the
Information Age, the company says on its Web site.

GT Advanced Technologies, which sells furnaces and other equipment for


making the polysilicon and ingots used in making solar cells, does 98 percent
of its business in Asia, much of it in China. We compete very effectively as a
U.S.-based corporation in spite of the fact that my Chinese competitors sell at
half my price, said Tom Gutierrez, chief executive of the New Hampshirebased firm. We beat them through technology and innovation.

But U.S. solar panel manufacturers and people who believe that solar
manufacturing can become part of a new clean technology economy are
unhappy. They believe that the flood of Chinese solar cells is a textbook case
of dumping an economic term to describe when foreign companies
overwhelm a market with cheap goods to drive competitors out of business.
Later, after gaining control of that market, the foreign companies can jack up
prices.

Chinese panels are selling for less than $1 a watt, while those made
elsewhere sell for about 20 percent more, according to Bloomberg New
Energy Finance.

China supplies nearly half of U.S. solar panel imports 44.6 million units in
the first eight months of the year, up from 3.8 million in 2008, according to
an anti-dumping petition filed by a group of U.S. firms. Those sales rocketed
to $1.69 billion through August of this year from $233.3 million in 2008.

The biggest of those panel makers, Suntech, promotes its products in ads
that show two panels hooked up to an electric American flag. Now Power
America, from America, the ad says, even though only 2 percent of
Suntechs manufacturing capacity is in the United States.

But volume doesnt guarantee profits and for Chinese solar companies, it has
been a painful rise to the top ranks of the global market. Suntech, JA Solar
and LDK Solar, the top Chinese solar panel makers, reported losses for the
third quarter and warned investors the outlook was grim. JA Solar reported
operating losses and a writedown on the value of its inventory. Suntech,
which lost $116.4 million in the third quarter, said it expected shipments to
drop 10 percent in the fourth quarter.

This will be challenging for all solar companies, Suntech chief executive Shi
Zhengrong said during a conference call with investors in November. Many of
Chinas more than 100 solar cell firms and 300 solar module companies with
lower-quality products could close down.

In addition, Chinese solar panel makers are facing possible tariffs as the U.S.
International Trade Commission weighs charges in the dumping case. In a 6
to 0 vote Dec. 5, the ITC found a reasonable indication that Chinese imports
are materially injuring the U.S. industry. It is considering whether to impose
duties, and at what level.

In a Nov. 22 conference call about its quarterly earnings, JA Solar chief


executive Fang Peng said the company might move some of its finishing
operations to other countries, such as South Korea or Taiwan, so that its
panels would not be considered imports from China. To be prudent we need
to have a work-around solution, chief financial officer Min Cao said.

China is not pricing its products to make money, said Timothy Brightbill, a
lawyer at Wiley Rein who is representing U.S. solar panel makers in the
dumping case. Its pricing its products to try to dominate this market.

Export demand low- US and EU tariffs- theyll shift to


domestic demand
The Economist, Authoritative International Politics and
Business News, 2012
(December 7th, 2012, Chinas Solar Plans are Insane,
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-solar-plans-are-insane-2012-12,
accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
China's bloated solar sector has been hard hit this year by plummeting prices
brought on by overcapacity. Overseas demand, which absorbs most Chinese
panels, is set to fall next year as tariffs are imposed and subsidies cut.
However, consolidation in solar manufacturing is not yet in the cards. Instead,
the government is turning its attention to boosting domestic solar-power
installations. At the same time, it is turning a blind eye to local governments'
grandiose plans to ramp up production. As new-energy and high-tech activity
remains a national priority, these plans are likely to come at least to partial
fruition, exacerbating the problems suffered by the industry.

Most of the solar panels made in China are exported, with much of the
demand coming from the US and Europe; the latter is expected to account for
two-thirds of worldwide installed solar capacity this year. Global demand
growth has been robust, with panel installations doubling in the US in both
2011 and 2012.

However, 2013 is likely to be different. US anti-dumping tariffs on solar-cell


imports from China were finally approved in November, which will discourage
purchases from Chinese companies. In early 2012 several EU countries,
including Spain, cut subsidies for solar installations. To top it all, the EU began
an anti-dumping investigation into Chinese solar exports in September, which
may lead to further tariffs.

As the sector braces itself for the slump in external demand, officials are
trying to accelerate development in the home market. China has already
become the world's third-largest consumer of solar energy, up from seventh
in 2010. Solar installed capacity ballooned from 537 mw in 2010 to 2.5 gw in
2011. As a result of the external slowdown, officials have brought forward the
planned target of 21 gw from 2020 to 2015. In October local media reported
that the State Grid, China's largest utility, plans to give local subsidiaries the
power to approve plants with installed capacity of less than 10 mw. The
National Energy Administration is reportedly considering a subsidy of
Rmb0.4-0.6 per kwh of distributed solar power.

More, more, more


The pains taken to boost domestic absorption may prove a Sisyphean task,
however, as local governments still have ambitious plans to ramp up
production. The industry remains favoured, and is seen by local officials as an
easy way to boost new-energy and high-tech development. Moreover, it spurs
upstream activities, such as the production of polysilicon, a core component
in solar panels.

The province of Shaanxi, which has large stores of polysilicon as well as a


glitzy new solar research-and-development centre established by US-based
Applied Materials, aims to raise solar industrial output to Rmb300bn
(US$47.6bn) by 2015-a tenfold increase on 2011. By comparison, total
Chinese exports to Europe were only worth Rmb223bn in 2011. Efforts to
increase photovoltaic (PV) cell production in the north of the province, where
several solar-power stations are under construction, have been substantial.
The local five-year plan (2011-15) calls for expansion into equipment
manufacturing.

Production in Chengdu, the provincial capital of Sichuan, is also expanding


rapidly. In-November 2012 the prefecture announced that it had attracted
Rmb6.45bn in planned investment for solar-manufacturing projects. Chengdu
has maintained a target of Rmb100bn in industrial capacity in new energy,
with a focus on solar projects. In May the western region of Xinjiang released
a five-year development plan targeting annual output of Rmb10bn from PV
producers, and annual income growth of more than 70% from the PV industry.

Solar madness
Expanding production in western China will exacerbate the problems. This
year solar panels with an estimated capacity of 59 gw will be produced in
China, against global demand of just 30 gw. Producers in Shaanxi, Chengdu
and Xinjiang are still overwhelmingly looking to foreign markets to take up
excess supply, creating more price competition for struggling established
companies.

Installation costs per watt dropped by 45% between 2010 and August 2012much of this driven by falling panel prices. In the first 10 months of 2012,
Chengdu's solar-cell exports rose by 60%, while the average value of those
exports fell by 89%. Prices for polysilicon fell from US$50-55/kg in 2009 to

US$20-30/kg in August 2012, forcing around 80% of the country's polysilicon


producers to shut down this year.

Although western China will see demand grow, much depends on the pace of
progress in constructing supporting infrastructure. The country is still
struggling to build the infrastructure needed to transfer the electricity to
market. In 2011, only 70% of China's installed solar capacity was connected
to the grid.

In addition, more advanced power distribution and storage systems are


needed to handle the irregular nature of power loads from solar and wind
sources. The State Grid is reportedly investing more than Rmb300bn in
upgrading transmission infrastructure this year. It plans to complete seven
ultra-high voltage (UHV) lines by 2015, forming the backbone of a national
grid system.

Several recently announced projects in Xinjiang and Qinghai are explicitly


dependent on the further development of UHV lines. However, doubts remain
over the success of these lines. Similar projects have been abandoned in
Russia, the US and Japan, as overdependence on UHV can amplify the
damage caused by isolated grid failures and blackouts. Projects often run
over schedule in order to account for these issues. Many of China's new
installations will probably remain off-grid for some time after they are
completed.

In the next few years the country should surpass Germany and Italy as the
world's largest consumer of solar panels. However, this will not be enough to
fix the struggling sector. The central government will need to make more
aggressive attempts at consolidation than it has done so far, lest its
companies-which are often propped up by local governments-fall further and
further into debt. LDK Solar, one of the country's largest manufacturers, was
sued in November for failing to repay its loans.

Western regions looking to expand their high-technology manufacturing may


see a short-term boon, but the outlook for the overall industry is anything but
sunny.

Turn: development increases stability and trade isnt zero


sum
Klien, Washington Post Journalist, 10
[Ezra, 6/3/2010, The Washington Post, The global economy isn't zero-sum,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein/2010/06/the_global_economy_isnt_zero-s.html, accessed 7/8/2014 CK]

Polls and focus groups show that people go nuts for this sort of rhetoric. If you
want the country to get behind your policy initiative, just tell them that China
is beating us to the punch. But global economic growth is not a zero-sum
game. Quite the opposite, in fact. If China and America both develop large
and innovative clean-energy sectors, the result will be cleaner energy. If India
graduates more engineers than we do, that means the world will have more
engineers. If China gets a serious medical-research sector going, it will
develop cures that will work on diseases that afflict Americans, too.
Competitive language is used in service of worthy goals, but it's also
dangerous stuff. We're telling Americans to fear the economic development of
other countries, when what they should actually fear is the reverse. If China
or India stagnate, that means they won't become huge markets for our
exports, it means they won't develop new technologies that can better our
lives, it means that they won't be geopolitical anchors in the way that only
rich, stable countries can be. The global economy isn't a race so much as it's
a relay.

No tradeoff the Chinese industry will still grow even with


American investment solves the DA
Larson, 10 (Christina, contributing editor at Foreign Policy, correspondent
for The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, The New Republic, The
Washington Monthly, fellow at the New America Foundation, Americas
Unfounded Fears of A Green-Tech Race with China, Yale University,
Environment 360,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/americas_unfounded_fears_of_a_greentech_race_with_china/2238/)
Even when you are looking at these big numbers that are coming out of
China today, I think it really pays to give a close look at what is actually
happening on the ground, says Elizabeth Economy, director of Asia Studies
at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The River Runs Black. Then
you begin to get a different, more nuanced picture than what is blasted on
the business section of the New York Times. The first essential fact to be
aware of is that most news stories about Chinas greentech gains are about
manufacturing. China is becoming the wind-turbine factory to the world for
much the same reasons it has long been the TV and t-shirt factory to the
world: lower wages, lower land prices, fewer regulatory and other

requirements, etc. This isnt particularly surprising, and it shouldnt be seen


as a reversal of the status quo. Whats changed most dramatically in the last
five years has been growing global demand. With significant government
investment, Chinese factories have planned for and stepped up production
accordingly. Yes, this is bad news for U.S. cities like Detroit, where planners
have recently been retrofitting old hot-rod factories into wind-turbine
factories, such as an old Ford Thunderbird plant in Michigan thats being
converted into a green-tech manufacturing center in a bid to boost the local
economy. Chinas research labs are politically constrained, limiting their
ability to attract top talent. Manufacturing in China, especially low and
medium-tech manufacturing, has certain clear economic advantages. But its
also worth considering a few other facts. Most of the green manufacturing
jobs that the U.S. stands to lose havent in fact been created yet; China will
gain thousands of new jobs, but not necessarily at Americas expense.
Moreover, the United States will still gain many new green-collar jobs, in
installation and maintenance, which can only be locally based, as well as
sales teams, conference planners, and other positions already arising to
support the growing green-tech field.

Turnplan increases interdependence which builds


relations
Luckhurst, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher
Education Department of International Relations and Law
Director, 2014
[Jonathan, 3/26/14, International Studies Association Annual Convention, Is
ChinaU.S. Economic Cooperation an Antidote to Strategic Conflict, 7/9/14,
IC]
The paper examines how ChinaU.S. economic cooperation decreases
strategic tensions, with insights from social constructivism and complex
interdependence theory. Chinas integration in the international economy
decreases the potential for confrontation or a new superpower rivalry with
the United States. Interdependence has also encouraged economic
cooperation between their governments since the 2008 financial crisis.
Socialization and a crisis effect further motivated Chinese policymakers to
adopt liberal and multilateral norms of economic governance. The
convergence of Chinese and U.S. leaders around new, post-crisis governance
norms has enhanced their relations. Some scholars claim the BRICS1 could
challenge U.S. influence and the liberal international order, but the Chinese
government has rejected attempts to destabilize the international economy
and its multilateral institutions. Chinese and U.S. policymakers have
prioritized cooperation as they perceive their relations to be based on the
non-zero sum effects of complex interdependence. Socialization,

normative suasion, and policy networks strengthen these ties and reduce
prospects for significant strategic conflict.

Internal Link
No impact to economic slow-down- its manageable and
actually a good thing- prevents massive bubble bursts
Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, the leading global
political risk research and consulting firm, 2013
(Ian, July 19th, Will Chinas slowing growth lead to unrest?,
http://blogs.reuters.com/ian-bremmer/2013/07/19/will-chinas-slowing-growthlead-to-unrest/, accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
But unlike many other emerging markets, China views slower growth as a
manageable challenge. The government actually recognizes that a slowdown
is necessary to meet its reform and rebalancing goals, and is working now to
score political points among the population by arguing that its doing so. In
particular, Beijing hopes that the slowdown will force industrial consolidation
and less resource consumption, which could slow environmental degradation
which has been a major point of political vulnerability for the government.
Slower growth should also calm the real estate sector, where rising prices
have been a major sore point for urban Chinese. Chinas new leadership is
betting that progress on these fronts will outweigh the downside risks theyll
face as job losses tick up in the face of slower growth.

From a global perspective, there is a strong case to be made that Chinas


slowing growth rate is actually a good sign. The fact that Beijing hasnt just
reflexively pumped capital into the system to keep growth rates up shows
that it is willing to begin undertaking modest economic reforms; it is, in
effect, letting bubbles shrink rather than grow until they pop. This approach is
characteristic of the new leadership that took charge in March of this year:
they are less risk averse and they have a more long-sighted handle on the
necessary economic changes that China will have to undertake.

The new president himself is a cause for optimism. Xi Jinping has a more
assertive, off-the-cuff style; he is a more spontaneous, charismatic leader
than his predecessors, and early reviews in Chinas blogosphere suggest a
favorable first impression. Xi is using this boldness to work to consolidate his
support within the Communist Party. And the extent to which he is successful
will mean even more capacity for even more reform over time.

CCP can manage social instability


Lavin, Chinese Political Analyst for the Heritage
Foundation, 2013

(Franklin L., April 1st, Four Issues Facing China,


http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2013/04/four-issues-facing-china,
accessed 7/18/14, LLM)
Im a bit of a contrarian, because I think itd be a mistake to interpret all of
that as a broad destabilizing tendency. I think most of the protests, and most
of the unhappy noises we hear, are in response to very specific local issues;
theyre not general statements about Chinese government or Chinese
politics. Ill make another point as well, about upticks in labor protests, for
example, or street protests, or what wed call an American NIMBY (not in my
backyard) protestpeople unhappy about a specific activity taking place in
their neighborhood. So the government announces that it will place a
chemical plant in a certain jurisdiction and people from that jurisdiction have
a street protest and the government backs down, or something happens.
Thats what we call a NIMBY protest. But its not people wanting to overthrow
the government or even wanting a broad change in the government; but they
sure as heck dont want that chemical plant in their neighborhood.
Id say, in that context, you could argue that these protests are actually a
factor for stability. If you have a system that allows protests, you actually
have a more stable system than a system that didnt allow them. Let me boil
it down to a question asked by a friend. This was about six or eight months
ago, as events in the Mid-East unfolded: Wont China have an Arab Spring?
Dont you have sort of the same conditions? You have a government that is
not democratic and you have liberties that are substantially curtailed, and so
wouldnt you just have the same outcome there? In my view, the two
situations are not comparable, and there are four big differences between
China and, say, the Arab world.
The first difference is that the Chinese economy is performing well. Second,
China does allow scope for criticism and discussion of issuesnot as much as
the U.S., certainly, but I suspect considerably more than Syria and Libya, and
more, even, than Egypt under Mubarak. Third, the Chinese system has the
capacity for reform. The Chinese make changes and there are adjustments as
they go along. I dont have that impression from the Arab states. Fourth,
China has made the transition from a personality-led system of government
to a bureaucratic system. That transition allows a much higher level of
functionality, probably less cronyism, greater performance, and it also
removes a focal point for criticism. People arent happy with Mubarak in
Egypt or theyre unhappy with the fact that the Syrian government is an
inherited government, but theres one less thing to complain about in China.
Theres certainly a princeling class of people who are in positions of authority
because of their fathers, but theres not an inherited government in the
Syrian sense. Id also note that China has a more effective repressive
apparatus, so the regime has a more effective ability to tamp down things it
doesnt like.

China continues to move the out-of-bound markers, it allows for more scope
of discussion, and I think that helps feed into this overall stability. My take on
the domestic stability side is also a bit bullish in the near term, that social
stability is highly manageable. There could well be more protests, but these
wont translate into broad political discontent or condemnation of Beijing.

***Cadmium Mining DA

1NC Shell
Increased demand of renewables leads to increased
cadmium mining
Culley, writer for mining facts, 2012
(Johnathon, 2/13, Mining Facts, Mining needed to meet mineral needs of
renewable energy, http://www.miningfacts.org/Blog/Mining-News/Miningneeded-to-meet-mineral-needs-of-renewable-energy/, 7/17, JC)
Soaring demand and shortages in mineral supplies threaten renewable
energy expansion
A recent report by the United Nations predicts that wind, solar and other
renewable energies will eventually account for most energy used.[1] In the
U.S., the Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently reported that
renewable energy from solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and
biomass/biofuels now makes up 11.95% of U.S. energy provided during the
first three quarters of 2011.[2] Renewable energy production in the U.S.
increased from 10.85% in 2010 and 10.33% in 2009, and now provides a
greater share of domestic energy production than nuclear.[2]
Renewable energy requires metals and minerals
The increased production of renewable energy is also driving increased
demand for mined metals and minerals. New solar panels require arsenic,
bauxite, boron, cadmium, coal, copper, gallium, indium, iron ore,
molybdenum, lead, phosphate, selenium, silica, tellurium, and titanium
dioxide.[3] Wind turbines use concrete, bauxite, cobalt, copper, iron ore,
molybdenum and rare earth elements.[4] The rare earth elements (REE), also
known as rare earth metals, are particularly important in wind turbines as
they reduce the weight and size needed for magnets in wind turbines.[5]
Supply restrictions
Soaring demand and limited supplies of REE are now threatening to limit the
expansion of renewable energy technologies, according to a recent U.S.
Energy Department report.[6] China currently produces about 95% of the rare
earth elements and five REE dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium,
and yttrium - face potential shortages until 2015.[6] Chinas control over
these elements is also of concern due to export restrictions and quotas.
New supplies of Rare Earth Elements
The U.S. is now seeking to develop its own domestic REE mining industry, as
well as to diversify global supplies.[6] Canada also has the potential for REE
production, with an estimated 56% of REE deposits outside of China.[5]
Perhaps the most significant challenge to increasing REE supplies is the
regulatory environment, which can result in multiple years between
exploration and production.[6] However, without increased exploration and
mining, the expansion of renewable energy technologies may be threatened.

Increased mining of cadmium leads to increased exposure


to other environments
Cullen, professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences @ U of
Victoria, 2013
(Jay, Springer Science, Biogeochemistry of Cadmium and Its Release to the
Environment, 7/18, JC)

The relative mobility of Cd and its inherent toxicity to organisms make it a


heavy metal of concern and motivate the scientific community to understand
its sources and fate in the environment. Humans have dramatically altered
the biogeochemical cycle of Cd in the environment by mobilizing massive
quantities of Cd in the biosphere. This mobilization occurs primarily through
non-ferrous metal production and the burning of fossil fuels. As a
consequence, material (both in the dissolved and particulate phase) in the
atmosphere, as well as in rainwater, soils, sediments, and aquatic
environments is significantly enriched in Cd relative to its average
concentration in the continental crust. The emissions of Cd to the
environment appear to have been curbed since the 1980s in response to
increased regulation of its use and the implementation of more efficient point
source capture and recycling initiatives. Indeed, global Cd production reached
a plateau in ~1990 at ~20,000 t/yr. Over the past 40 years, however, we
have seen a shift in the regions of major Cd production from Europe and
North America initially to countries in East Asia more recently. This production
shift reflects growing demand for energy and increased industrialization in
this area. One concern, going forward, is that emissions in Asia are roughly 3fold higher than on the next nearest continent and appear to be increasing
with time perhaps due to less 56 Cullen and Maldonado stringent emission
controls. Whether or not global emissions of Cd will increase in response to
the rapid industrialization of countries in Asia remains to be seen, but should
be closely monitored. Developments in the study of the marine
biogeochemistry of Cd are particularly exciting and show significant progress
since the first reliable measurements of dissolved Cd were made in the open
ocean about 35 years ago. We now look upon Cd as a potentially ecologically
significant nutrient involved in carbon acquisition by marine algae and have
used sedimentary records of Cd preserved

Increases in cadmium use spreads cadmium to the


agricultural sector causes large scale spread of disease
Page et al, professors of soil and environmental sciences,
1987

(AL, UC Riverside, Cadmium Levels in Soils and Crops in the United States,
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_31/SCOPE_31_2.05_Chapter10_119146.pdf, 7/17, JC)
Cadmium (Cd) is regarded as one of the most toxic trace elements in the
environment. The increased emissions resulting from its production, use, and
disposal, combined with its persistence in the environment, and its relatively

rapid uptake and accumulation by food chain crops contribute to its potential
environmental hazards. Cadmium may find its way to the human population
through food and beverage, drinking water, air, and cigarette smoking.
Although acute Cd toxicity caused by food consumption is rare, chronic
exposure to high Cd levels in food can significantly increase the accumulation
of Cd in certain body organs. When the concentration in the human body
reaches levels considered to be harmful (> 200 p,g/gm wet weight in the
kidney cortex according to Kjellstrom and Nordberg, 1978), cadmium-induced
kidney damage, skeletal disorders as well as other diseases may result. A
highly publicized episode of Cd poisoning of humans (itai-itai disease) was
reported in Japan in the mid-1950s (Tsuchiya, 1978). The source of excessive
Cd to the affected individuals came from rice grown on nearby paddies which
had been irrigated with water from a river contaminated by zinc mining
operations. The Cd concentrations of the rice, of the river sediments and of
the soil in which the rice was grown were considerably greater than those
found in uncontaminated regions.

Disease lead to extinction


Yu, Dartmouth Undergrad, 9

(Victoria, Undergraduate at Dartmouth, University publication, Human


Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of
Science, 22 May 2009, 6-31-13)
A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses.
Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the
European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been
developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral
strains are constantly emerging a process that maintains the possibility of
a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a
potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable
cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the
viruss abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proofreading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily,
though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global

HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting
itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening
of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as
influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The
simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and
antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus
could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not
immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time
could potentially lead to a global influenza pandemic , according to the Centers for
infection:

Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918- when bird flu
managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu

Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations


were required to convert the original viral strain which could only infect
birds into a human-viable strain (10).
pandemic.

Uniqueness
Zinc prices increasing in the squo cadmium production
low because it is a derivative of zinc mining
Faroon et al, researcher for the Agency of Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, 2012

(O, 9/2012, NCBI, Toxicological Profile for Cadmium,


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158841/, 7/19, JC)
Cadmium is a widely but sparsely distributed element found in the earth's
crust at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 5 ppm, primarily as sulfide
minerals in association with zinc ores, zinc-bearing lead ores, and or complex
copper-lead-zinc ores (Morrow 2001). Approximately 3 kg of cadmium for
each ton of zinc are produced (OECD 1995). About 80% of cadmium
production is associated with zinc production, while the other 20% is
associated with lead and copper byproduct production and the recapture of
cadmium from finished products (Morrow 2001). Between 2003 and 2006, the
annual cadmium refinery production in the United States declined from 1,450
to 700 metric tons, dropping 52% between 2005 and 2006 (USGS 2007,
2008). Demand for cadmium in the nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) battery industry is
strengthening as demand in other areas, like coatings and pigments, has
been decreasing due to environmental concerns and regulations. Despite this
demand, primary production of cadmium may decrease as zinc prices
increase, since producers may choose to discard the cadmium byproduct
instead of refining it (USGS 2008).

Zinc prices are at an all-time high means decline in use


inevitable, will decrease cadmium supplies
Troszkiewicz, reporter for Bloomberg, Javier, reporter for
Bloomberg, 2014

(Agnieszka, Luzi Ann, July 14, Bloomberg, Zinc Prices Rise to a 35 Month High
as Inventories Decline, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-14/zincprices-rise-to-35-month-high-as-inventories-decline.html, 7/19/14, JC)
Zinc prices climbed to a 35-month high as inventories extended a slump amid
signs of higher demand.
Stockpiles monitored by the London Metal Exchange have dropped 29
percent this year to the lowest since December 2010. Demand for refined
zinc will exceed output by 250,000 metric tons this year, according to BNP
Paribas SA. Commodity consumption may climb in China, the worlds biggest
user of industrial metals, Morgan Stanley said on July 11.
Were seeing declining stockpiles help provide support for zinc, Phil
Streible, a senior commodity broker at R.J. OBrien & Associates in Chicago,
said in a telephone interview. That may be an indication of rising demand.
Zinc for delivery in three months rose 0.2 percent to settle at $2,307 a ton at
5:51 p.m. on the LME. Earlier, the price touched $2,325.50, the highest since

Aug. 5, 2011. Stockpiles dropped for the 11th straight session to 659,975
tons.
Copper fell 0.5 percent to $7,122.50 a ton ($3.23 a pound). Stockpiles
tracked by the LME in Busan, South Korea, have climbed sixfold this month to
12,350 tons.

Zinc supplies are decreasing cadmium production will


decrease
McLeod, reporter for Zinc Investing, 2014
(Charlotte, 6/21/, Zinc Investing News, The Zinc Deficit Has Arrived Heres
What You Need to Know, http://zincinvestingnews.com/8196-zinc-deficitsupply-demand-outlook-2014.html, 7/19/14, JC)
Those involved in the zinc market are likely tired of hearing that prices for the
base metal are set to improve just not quite yet. After all, that was the
rallying cry of market watchers from Haywood Securities Stefan Ioannou
to analysts at Research and Markets, FastMarkets and HSBC Holdings for
the last six months or so of 2013.
Zinc market participants are probably also tired of hearing the
counterargument that zinc prices will go almost nowhere in 2014, or indeed
2015 and 2016.
Central to the question of whether zinc prices are due to rise is yet another
question, namely, is the zinc market set to fall into deficit, and, if so, when?
Fortunately, Doug Ramshaw of McLeod Williams Capital was able to provide
Zinc Investing News with some insight on that topic.
Price rise inevitable
Ramshaw began by explaining that according to the International Lead and
Zinc Study Group, the zinc market technically went into deficit in the last
couple of months of 2013. However, that news hasnt made much of a splash
because people are looking at zinc inventories still and seeing how high they
are. Indeed, he said, they sat at 786,000 tonnes just prior to the end of April.
Skepticism is also rife because proponents of zinc and the impending zinc
rally are more often wrong than right as zinc tends to have just two good
years out of every 10 to 12.
That said, Ramshaw believes this time prices really are set to rise. One
reason he thinks so is that the 8-to-10-cent range that has existed between
zinc and lead prices for the past couple of years recently narrowed to such an
extent that zinc just briefly for a grand total of one day, traded higher
than lead on a per-pound basis. Thats significant because zinc and lead are
sister metals, meaning theyre produced together at many major mines.
While that may sound convenient, the metals relationship can cause
problems when one is in higher demand than the other. Last year, for
instance, some analysts were concerned that strong lead demand and
hence increased production of both lead and zinc would hurt zinc prices.
Less difference in price is thus a good thing for zinc.
Ramshaw also cited declining zinc production as a reason prices should
increase in the not-far-off future. We have this almost unprecedented
situation that in the space of two and a half calendar years, three of the top

10 zinc mines are coming offstream. When you have that all at once, thats a
lot of supply to try to replace, he said. Specifically, he noted, all these
mines that are shutting down, it equates to about 12 percent of 2013 zinc
production, zinc mine supply.
Twelve percent may not sound like a lot, but Ramshaw was careful to put that
number in perspective. He commented, if you look at that 12 percent and
you equate that in terms of copper mine supply, thats like BHP Billiton
(ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BLT) and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold
(NYSE:FCX) ending copper production, not for a month or six months or a
year, but for good. Given that the copper market moves even on just fear
of a strike at Escondida, Ramshaw is convinced people [dont] understand
quite how significant these mine closures are.

Zinc stocks declining cadmium consumption decreasing


Tan, writer for basemetals.com, 2014

(Lynette, 6/30/14, basemetals.com, SHFE STOCKS Metal stocks mostly


down; zinc stocks fell for 4th consecutive wk,
http://www.fastmarkets.com/zinc-news/shfe-stocks-metal-stocks-mostlydown-zinc-stocks-fell-for-4th-consecutive-wk-75996#sthash.W3wumxAY.dpuf,
7/19, JC)
Deliverable copper stocks in warehouses monitored by the Shanghai Futures
Exchange (SHFE) declined in the week of 30th May.
Copper inventories stood at 91,947 mt Friday, lower by a modest 705 tonnes
together with declining on-warrant stocks of 25 tonnes.
Deliverable aluminium stocks decreased this week as well, falling 1,567
tonnes to 397,287 tonnes, and on-warrant stocks fell 2,873 tonnes to total
230,665 tonnes.
SHFE deliverable zinc stocks decreased 8,302 tonnes to 217,166 tonnes,
registering a fourth week of decline for more than 5,000 tonnes in weekly
inventory. The decline in zinc stocks all came from the warehouses in
Shanghai. On warrant stocks fell as well, decreasing 8,481 tonnes to 50,804
tonnes.
Deliverable lead stocks saw a drop of 440 tonnes to 70,821 tonnes; on
warrant stocks declined 1,452 tonnes to 49,687 tonnes.
Gold stocks saw no change at 420 kilograms while silver stocks increased
1,339 kilograms to 229,113 kilograms.
Rebar and wire rod stocks were flat at zero.

Links

Renewables
Increased demand of renewables leads to increased
cadmium mining
Culley, writer for mining facts, 2012
(Johnathon, 2/13, Mining Facts, Mining needed to meet mineral needs of
renewable energy, http://www.miningfacts.org/Blog/Mining-News/Miningneeded-to-meet-mineral-needs-of-renewable-energy/, 7/17, JC)
Soaring demand and shortages in mineral supplies threaten renewable
energy expansion
A recent report by the United Nations predicts that wind, solar and other
renewable energies will eventually account for most energy used.[1] In the
U.S., the Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently reported that
renewable energy from solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and
biomass/biofuels now makes up 11.95% of U.S. energy provided during the
first three quarters of 2011.[2] Renewable energy production in the U.S.
increased from 10.85% in 2010 and 10.33% in 2009, and now provides a
greater share of domestic energy production than nuclear.[2]
Renewable energy requires metals and minerals
The increased production of renewable energy is also driving increased
demand for mined metals and minerals. New solar panels require arsenic,
bauxite, boron, cadmium, coal, copper, gallium, indium, iron ore,
molybdenum, lead, phosphate, selenium, silica, tellurium, and titanium
dioxide.[3] Wind turbines use concrete, bauxite, cobalt, copper, iron ore,
molybdenum and rare earth elements.[4] The rare earth elements (REE), also
known as rare earth metals, are particularly important in wind turbines as
they reduce the weight and size needed for magnets in wind turbines.[5]
Supply restrictions
Soaring demand and limited supplies of REE are now threatening to limit the
expansion of renewable energy technologies, according to a recent U.S.
Energy Department report.[6] China currently produces about 95% of the rare
earth elements and five REE dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium,
and yttrium - face potential shortages until 2015.[6] Chinas control over
these elements is also of concern due to export restrictions and quotas.
New supplies of Rare Earth Elements
The U.S. is now seeking to develop its own domestic REE mining industry, as
well as to diversify global supplies.[6] Canada also has the potential for REE
production, with an estimated 56% of REE deposits outside of China.[5]
Perhaps the most significant challenge to increasing REE supplies is the
regulatory environment, which can result in multiple years between
exploration and production.[6] However, without increased exploration and
mining, the expansion of renewable energy technologies may be threatened.

Solar
Cadmium is a key resource for solar panels
Zweibel et al, Former Director of the Institute for Analysis of Solar Energy
at George Washington University, 2008
(Ken, January, Scientific American, A Solar Grand Plan,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-grand-plan/, 7/16/14, JC)
Photovoltaic Farms In the past few years the cost to produce photovoltaic
cells and modules has dropped significantly, opening the way for large-scale
deployment. Various cell types exist, but the least expensive modules today
are thin films made of cadmium telluride. To provide electricity at six cents
per kWh by 2020, cadmium telluride modules would have to convert
electricity with 14 percent efficiency, and systems would have to be installed
at $1.20 per watt of capacity. Current modules have 10 percent efficiency and
an installed system cost of about $4 per watt. Progress is clearly needed, but
the technology is advancing quickly; commercial efficiencies have risen from
9 to 10 percent in the past 12 months. It is worth noting, too, that as modules
improve, rooftop photovoltaics will become more costcompetitive for
homeowners, reducing daytime electricity demand.

Solar industry will inevitably use cadmium in thin film


photovoltaic cells
Mullins, writer for Gigaom, 2008

(Robert, 9/25, Gigaom, Cadmium: The Dark Side of Thin-Film?, 7/18, JC)
The future of the solar power industry may be bright, but solar also has a
dark side the panels being built today have an estimated lifespan of 30 to
40 years and then are largely discarded. The problem with that is that some
thin-film photovoltaic solar cells contain hazardous substances like cadmium
that can pose a health risk if the solar panel is simply thrown out after its
done soaking up the sun. The issue is important enough that in late October,
the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), which lobbies to keep old computer
parts from being dumped, plans to release a report raising concerns about
cadmium in solar panels and urging manufacturers to reclaim old panels to
keep cadmium out of the waste stream.
Only about 1 percent of electrical generation globally comes from solar today,
but that is expected to grow to 20 or 40 percent by 2020, according to
McKinsey & Co. SVTC cites forecasts such as that to argue that the solar
industry should develop best practices now to ensure solar panel makers take
responsibility for the product lifecycle.
The writing is pretty much on the wall that solar panels have materials in
them that need to be recovered because some of them are hazardous, said
Shelia Davis, executive director of the SVTC. Although relatively few solar
panels have reached end of life, shes concerned that when more of them are
retired, they could end up with other construction debris in landfills.
Cadmium, a byproduct of copper, lead and zinc mining, can be really bad for
humans and the ecosystem. Its a toxic metal that can cause kidney and

breathing problems, according to the U.S. Labor Department. The European


Union has also banned cadmium from being used in batteries and electronics.
Cadmium is used in one of the leading new thin-film PV panel types, but as a
compound that manufacturers argue is much safer than cadmium alone.
Thin-film solar leader First Solar uses cadmium-telluride to make the
semiconductors that are sandwiched between two sheets of glass to convert
the sunlight into electricity. So do newer startups like AVA Solar.

Internal Link

Mining
Mining spreads dangerous amounts of cadmium empirics
prove
Kaji, researcher @ Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2012
(Masanori, 7/6/12, Role of experts and public participation in pollution control:
the case of Itai-itai disease in Japan, 7/18/14, JC)
During the 1960s and 1970s, Japan enjoyed a period of very high economic
growth but suffered at the same time from various forms of pollution, such as
air, water, noise, and mining pollution. Japan was even referred to as one of
the advanced nations of the world in pollution2. Pollution-related diseases
became a matter of public concern. Itai-itai disease was one of these
diseases, caused by a very severe type of cadmium poisoning resulting from
the pollution of rice fields. The liquid wastes of the Kamioka mine, owned by
the Mitsui Mining & Smelting Company Ltd (Mitsui Kinzoku), were eventually
incriminated as the source of the cadmium. Kamioka was one of the richest
zinc mines in Japan. Cadmium occurs as a minor component in most zinc ores
and therefore is a byproduct of zinc production3. The numbers of patients
suffering from this disease between 1910 and 2007 were estimated at ~400
(Mat su nami 2010, p. 4448 & 537)

Increased mining of cadmium leads to increased exposure


to other environments
Cullen, professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences @ U of
Victoria, 2013
(Jay, Springer Science, Biogeochemistry of Cadmium and Its Release to the
Environment, 7/18, JC)
The relative mobility of Cd and its inherent toxicity to organisms make it a
heavy metal of concern and motivate the scientific community to understand
its sources and fate in the environment. Humans have dramatically altered
the biogeochemical cycle of Cd in the environment by mobilizing massive
quantities of Cd in the biosphere. This mobilization occurs primarily through
non-ferrous metal production and the burning of fossil fuels. As a
consequence, material (both in the dissolved and particulate phase) in the
atmosphere, as well as in rainwater, soils, sediments, and aquatic
environments is significantly enriched in Cd relative to its average
concentration in the continental crust. The emissions of Cd to the
environment appear to have been curbed since the 1980s in response to
increased regulation of its use and the implementation of more efficient point
source capture and recycling initiatives. Indeed, global Cd production reached
a plateau in ~1990 at ~20,000 t/yr. Over the past 40 years, however, we
have seen a shift in the regions of major Cd production from Europe and
North America initially to countries in East Asia more recently. This production
shift reflects growing demand for energy and increased industrialization in

this area. One concern, going forward, is that emissions in Asia are roughly 3fold higher than on the next nearest continent and appear to be increasing
with time perhaps due to less 56 Cullen and Maldonado stringent emission
controls. Whether or not global emissions of Cd will increase in response to
the rapid industrialization of countries in Asia remains to be seen, but should
be closely monitored. Developments in the study of the marine
biogeochemistry of Cd are particularly exciting and show significant progress
since the first reliable measurements of dissolved Cd were made in the open
ocean about 35 years ago. We now look upon Cd as a potentially ecologically
significant nutrient involved in carbon acquisition by marine algae and have
used sedimentary records of Cd preserved

Impacts

Diseases
Increases in cadmium use spreads cadmium to the
agricultural sector causes the spread of diseases
Page et al, professors of soil and environmental sciences,
1987

(AL, UC Riverside, Cadmium Levels in Soils and Crops in the United States,
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_31/SCOPE_31_2.05_Chapter10_119146.pdf, 7/17, JC)
Cadmium (Cd) is regarded as one of the most toxic trace elements in the
environment. The increased emissions resulting from its production, use, and
disposal, combined with its persistence in the environment, and its relatively
rapid uptake and accumulation by food chain crops contribute to its potential
environmental hazards. Cadmium may find its way to the human population
through food and beverage, drinking water, air, and cigarette smoking.
Although acute Cd toxicity caused by food consumption is rare, chronic
exposure to high Cd levels in food can significantly increase the accumulation
of Cd in certain body organs. When the concentration in the human body
reaches levels considered to be harmful (> 200 p,g/gm wet weight in the
kidney cortex according to Kjellstrom and Nordberg, 1978), cadmium-induced
kidney damage, skeletal disorders as well as other diseases may result. A
highly publicized episode of Cd poisoning of humans (itai-itai disease) was
reported in Japan in the mid-1950s (Tsuchiya, 1978). The source of excessive
Cd to the affected individuals came from rice grown on nearby paddies which
had been irrigated with water from a river contaminated by zinc mining
operations. The Cd concentrations of the rice, of the river sediments and of
the soil in which the rice was grown were considerably greater than those
found in uncontaminated regions.

Cadmium causes major health problems aids in the


spread of disease
Voice of Russia, newspaper based in Russia, 2013
(12/27/14, The VOICE OF RUSSIA, Toxic agents in environment kill millions
WHO, http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_27/Toxic-agents-in-environment-killmillions-WHO-6912/, 7/18/14, JC)
The World Health Organization has drawn up a list of chemical substances
that are the greatest health hazards, including asbestos, benzol, cadmium,
arsenic, too little or too much phosphorus, quicksilver, lead and some others.
The WHO also points out the ongoing air pollution buildup.
The WHO admits that it is impossible to fully give up the use of harmful
chemicals at the given stage of industrial development. But contact with toxic
substances may well be ratcheted down.

People are actually killed by the environment, for plastic products, chipboard
furniture, cosmetics, water and even food products are all stuffed with
chemicals, most of which are horrible toxins that kill millions of people across
the world every year.
Asbestos, for example, is a set of silicate minerals, superior to some grades of
steel in terms of tensile strength; it is non-water soluble, chemically inactive,
and immune to solar radiation effects, ozone and oxygen. Asbestos is used in
mechanical engineering, road building, in making tubes and wall tiles.
However, if its fibres are breathed in from the air, they remain inside ones
body for good, causing lung or throat cancer, and also ovarian cancer or
malignant mesothelioma.
A campaign for banning the use of asbestos was launched across the world in
the late 20th century. Asbestos has since been banned in the United States,
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the European Union. Other countries allow
the use of long-fibre asbestos, which is less carcinogenic. However, old road
surfaces and buildings are still in place, so short-fibre asbestos continues
poisoning one and all.
Yet another example is heavy metals, also added to the WHO list. They have
long been known for their adverse health effects, yet they continue to be
used extensively in everyday life, an expert of the commission on updating
the national health care system and demography of the Russian Public
Chamber, Irina Ilchenko, says and elaborates.
Heavy metals are seen as super toxicants because they will not emerge from
the body for a long time. Kidneys and other urinary organs are most sensitive
to cadmium. Lead is a neuro-toxicant thats responsible for
neurodevelopmental delay even in minor concentrations. It negatively affects
pregnancies, delivery and infants. But adults also suffer from the bad effects
of lead.
Any concentration of lead is a health hazard. It is breathed in or penetrates
ones body through skin. Yet, we continue using things made of lead, such as
soldering alloys and weight leads, printers types and ovenware frit glaze.
Even the walls of old buildings pose a threat, since they were painted by lead
paints, currently banned by law. Even if you make home in a recently repaired
old building, you may rest assured that the deepest layers of lead paint
continue releasing toxic air-pollutants that will steadily kill you.
Cadmium is known to be used in car batteries. Many people will also know of
yellowish self-attack screws, of which the cover contains cadmium.
Quicksilver is used in thermometers and energy-saving lamps that may cause
a lot of problems if you accidentally break them.

Cadmium easily spreads into lakes and contaminates food


leads to disease
New Zealand Herald, newspaper based in New Zealand,
2013

(7/31, The New Zealand Herald, Cadmium poisoning from China factory kills
26: report, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?
c_id=2&objectid=10906202, 7/18/14, JC)
At least 26 villagers have died from cadmium poisoning and hundreds more
fallen ill since 2009 near a disused factory in central China, local media said
Wednesday, underscoring the country's mounting pollution challenge.
Soil samples from Shuangqiao in Hunan province contained 300 times
authorised cadmium levels and excess amounts were found in 500 of 3,000
villagers tested by health authorities, the China Youth Daily said.
It said 26 people had died as a result of cadmium exposure in the last four
years, eight of them under 60 and 20 of them from cancer, while children in
the village were born with deformities.
A major chemical plant operated in the village until 2009, and a "huge"
industrial waste pile remains in the factory grounds, as does "an odour that
will not go away", the paper said.
It described the situation as "one of the country's 10 biggest pollution
incidents".
Cadmium is highly toxic and exposure to the metal "is known to cause
cancer", according to the US Department of Labor.

Aff Answers

Uniqueness
Cadmium mining high in the squo batteries and solar
panels use them
Faroon et al, researcher for the Agency of Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, 2012

(O, 9/2012, NCBI, Toxicological Profile for Cadmium,


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158841/, 7/19, JC)
Though cadmium metal consumption for batteries has grown steadily since
the 1980s and currently consumes 83% of the cadmium produced, other uses
of cadmium began declining in the mid 1990s. Pigment, stabilizer, coating,
and alloy markets for cadmium are decreasing due to environmental
concerns (USGS 1997, 2008). Proposed legislation, particularly in the
European Union, restricting cadmium in consumer products may have a
negative effect on cadmium demand (USGS 2008). Excessive exports from
Bulgaria and Russia in 1997 caused a drop in the average price of cadmium
from $1.84 per pound in 1995 to $0.51 per pound in 1997. Also, Ni-Cd
batteries have been replaced in some markets by lithium-ion and nickel metal
hydride batteries (USGS 2008). As of 2006, Ni-Cd batteries made up 18% of
the rechargeable battery market, down from 56% in 1996 with global sales
decreasing 16% between 2005 and 2006 (USGS 2008). Despite this trend,
demand for cadmium may increase due to new market opportunities for NiCd batteries (USGS 2008). Regulations by local authorities have forced the
recycling of cadmium in Ni-Cd batteries, further depressing the demand for
primary cadmium metal (USGS 1999).

Squo Solves
State safety measures check cadmium exposure to the
population - empirics
Jacobs, correspondent for NYT, 2012
(Andrew, 1/30, NYT, China Says It Curbed Spill of Toxic Metal in River, 7/18,
JC)
BEIJING Officials in southern China appear to have averted environmental
calamity by halting the spread of a toxic metal that had threatened to foul
drinking water for tens of millions of people, the state media reported
Monday.
Officials said they had successfully diluted the concentration of cadmium, a
poisonous component of batteries, that has been coursing down the
Longjiang River in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.
The spill, which first occurred two weeks ago, prompted a rush on bottled
water in several downstream cities and prompted worries that the
contamination could reach as far as Hong Kong and Macao.
The cadmium, a substance used in the production of paint, solder and solar
cells as well as batteries, has been traced to discharges from a mining
company in Guangxi that has since halted production, said Xinhua, the staterun news agency.

Shifting Away
Cadmium is a material of the past shift to magnesium
chloride coming now
Science Daily, a scientific news website, 2014
(6/26, science daily, Cheap and enviromentally friendly: Tofu ingredient could
revolutionize solar panel manufacture,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140626121852.htm, 7/18, JC)
The chemical used to make tofu and bath salts could also replace a highly
toxic and expensive substance used to make solar cells, a University study
published in the journal Nature has revealed.
Cadmium chloride is currently a key ingredient in solar cell technology used
in millions of solar panels around the world. This soluble compound is highly
toxic and expensive to produce, requiring elaborate safety measures to
protect workers during manufacture and then specialist disposal when panels
are no longer needed.
Safe and a fraction of the cost
Now, a University of Liverpool researcher has found that it can be replaced
with magnesium chloride, which is extracted from seawater and is already
used in products such as tofu, bath salts and for de-icing roads.
Safe and at a fraction of the cost -- $0.001 per gram compared to $0.3 -- it
has also been shown in the study to be as effective as the expensive and
toxic alternative.
Physicist, Dr Jon Major from the University's Stephenson Institute for
Renewable Energy carried out the research. He said: "If renewable energy is
going to compete with fossil fuels, then the cost has to come down. Great
strides have already been made, but the findings in this paper have the
potential to reduce costs further."
The cheapest solar cells being manufactured today are based on a thin film of
insoluble cadmium telluride. Alone, these cells convert less than two percent
of sunlight into energy. By applying cadmium chloride to them, this efficiency
increases to over 15 percent.
Same efficiency boost
Liverpool research, however, has shown that magnesium chloride can
achieve the same boost to efficiency.
Dr Major said: "We have to apply cadmium chloride in a fume cupboard in the
lab, but we created solar cells using the new method on a bench with a spray
gun bought from a model shop.

"Cadmium chloride is toxic and expensive and we no longer need to use it.
Replacing it with a naturally occurring substance could save the industry a
vast amount of money and reduce the overall cost for generating power from
solar."

Cadmium Inev
Cadmium usage will inevitably increase its a question
about restrictions
ICDA, non profit organization specifically researching
effects of cadmium, No Date

(International Committee on Cadmium, Cadmium Emission, 7/18/,


http://www.cadmium.org/pg_n.php?id_menu=7, JC)
Cadmium will invariably be present in our society, either in useful products or
in controlled wastes. Today, its health effects are well understood and well
regulated so that there is no need to restrict or ban cadmium products which,
in any event, contribute so little to human cadmium exposure as to be
virtually insignificant.
Nickel-cadmium batteries are essential and irreplaceable in many industrial
and consumer applications, particularly those requiring high power, long
cycle lives, and good high or low temperature performance. Rechargeable NiCd batteries can replace thousands of primary non-rechargeable batteries,
and thus significantly reduce the total amount of waste. The materials in
recyclable Ni-Cd batteries can be more than 99% recovered for reuse in the
production of new Ni-Cd batteries. World-wide initiatives have been
undertaken in Japan, North America, Europe, Australia and the OECD to
promote the collection of Ni-Cd batteries for recycling, thereby improving
overall recycling rates. Ni-Cd batteries are also making important
contributions to the development of the electric car market in Europe,
thereby contributing to the improvement of urban air quality.
Cadmium pigments and stabilisers are important additives in certain
specialised plastics, glasses, ceramics and enamels to achieve bright colours
along with long service lives, even in very demanding applications. From an
ecological point of view, it is important to develop and maintain functional
products with long service lives, once again to minimise the input into the
world's waste stream. Inferior substitutes which produce shortened service
lives will ultimately only increase the volume of the world's waste. It should
also be emphasised that cadmium in these applications is in a chemically
very stable, highly insoluble form, and embedded in the product's matrix.
Cadmium coated components, likewise, provide outstanding corrosion
resistance along with low friction coefficient, low electrical resistivity, good
galvanic comparability, good plating coverage, ability to coat a wide variety
of surfaces, and good brazeability and solderability. For these reasons,
cadmium coated products are preferred for a wide range of critical and safety
related applications in the aerospace, electrical, defence, mining, nuclear and
offshore industries. In addition, cadmium coating wastes and products are
easily recycled.
The recovery of cadmium from cadmium products through recycling
programs not only ensures that cadmium will be kept out of the waste stream
and out of the environment, but it also conserves valuable natural resources
as well. Attempts to ban or restrict cadmium products are considered

unnecessary, taking into account the ever decreasing human cadmium intake
level which is already well below the WHO-standard, and the very small
relative contribution of cadmium products in this respect. Such measures will
only have the effects of undermining extensive efforts to collect and recycle
cadmium products around the world. It will also have the marked effect of
reducing the European Union's competitiveness in international markets with
its attendant delocalisation of plants and losses of jobs. These conclusions
have already been reached in North America and Japan which have no
intention of restricting cadmium use in the manner proposed by the European
Union. A similar conclusion was also reached in the OECD Risk Reduction
Programme on Cadmium.
Rather than restricting cadmium products, it is argued that the European
Union should co-operate with and encourage the industry's voluntary product
stewardship initiatives to collect and recycle cadmium containing products
which would contribute to the sustainable and safe use of cadmium in
modem society.

India demand for cadmium offsets lack of demand


elsewhere
Smith, writer for the Metal Bulletin, 2014
(Chloe, 6/25/14, Metal Bulletin, Demand in India supports cadmium and
selenium prices, LEXIS, 7/19, JC)
Strong demand from India helped support cadmium and selenium prices this
week, even as demand from China waned, sources told Metal Bulletin.
The
election of pro-business Narendra Modi as India's prime minister, on May 16,
has driven strong demand from the country over the past month, helping
keep prices for both the metals level this week.
"Buying in India has picked
up because their stock markets are up and they have elected a new
president," a minor metals processor said.
The appreciation of the rupee
since the elections has also helped to generate demand from the country and
enabled importers to pay higher prices as the cost of imports is reduced,
sources said.
Despite falling against the dollar slightly since the end of May, the rupee has
appreciated a total of 1.6% since the end of April.
The good level of
demand in India kept selenium prices in Rotterdam at $23.50-26.50 per lb
on Wednesday June 25, even as offers from China remained
Selenium
prices had been supported in previous weeks by a boost in enquiries from
China as the manganese flake sector rebounded. But as manganese flake
prices in China have stalled, demand from China has been knocked back.
But the strong demand in India has enabled traders and producers to
continue to make sales at higher levels, sources said.
Importers in India
have also reported difficulty in securing material from LS Nikko, which has
also helped to boost demand from India to other suppliers.
Cadmium prices
also held on Wednesday, with prices at $0.75-0.85 for 3N5 material and
$0.85-0.95 for 4N material.
"Indian buyers are active on cadmium and
are always responsive whenever we have something to offer," one trader

said.
The continued demand from India for cadmium has helped to keep
the price firm this year, despite expectations that weak demand in China
would push the price down.
The market has also responded positively to
news that French recycler Aurea has been selected as a buyer for
Floridienne.
"This is good news for the cadmium market. The new owner
has said it will respect Floridienne's existing business line which is also
positive," the trader said.
While the news has not given any lift to the
market yet, it could help lift prices in September, a second minor metals
processor said

Impact UQ
No impact uq - Large amounts of cadmium are released
naturally
ICDA, non profit organization specifically researching
effects of cadmium, No Date

(International Committee on Cadmium, Cadmium Emission, 7/18/,


http://www.cadmium.org/pg_n.php?id_menu=7, JC)
2.1 Natural Cadmium Emissions Even though the average cadmium
concentration in the earth's crust is generally placed between 0.1 and 0.5
ppm, much higher levels may accumulate in sedimentary rocks, and marine
phosphates and phosphorites have been reported to contain levels as high as
500 ppm (Cook and Morrow 1995, WHO 1992). Weathering and erosion of
parent rocks result in the transport by rivers of large quantities, recently
estimated at 15,000 metric tonnes (mt) per annum, of cadmium to the
world's oceans (WHO 1992, OECD 1994). Volcanic activity is also a major
natural source of cadmium release to the atmosphere, and estimates on the
amount have been placed as high as 820 mt per year (WHO 1992, OECD
1994, Nriagu 1980, Nriagu 1989). Forest fires have also been reported as a
natural source of cadmium air emissions, with estimates from 1 to 70 mt
emitted to the atmosphere each year (Nriagu 1980).

Solar Doesnt Use Cadmium


REMs arent key to solar new tech means earthabundant materials can be used.
ACS, scientific society based in the US that supports
scientific inquiry, 12
(American Chemical Society, 8/21/12, ACS, New solar panels made with
more common metals could be cheaper and more sustainable,
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/august/new
-solar-panels-made-with-more-common-metals-could-be-cheaper-and-moresustainable.html, 7/18/14, JC)
scientists
today described advances toward the less-expensive solar energy technology
With enough sunlight falling on home roofs to supply at least half of Americas electricity,

needed to roof many of those homes with shingles that generate electricity. Shingles that generate
electricity from the sun, and can be installed like traditional roofing, already are a commercial reality. But

a new world performance record for solar cells made with earthabundant materials could make them more affordable and ease the
integration of photovoltaics into other parts of buildings, the scientists said .
the advance

Their report was part of a symposium on sustainability at the 244th National Meeting & Exposition of the
American Chemical Society, the worlds largest scientific society, being held here this week. Abstracts of
other presentations appear below. Sustainability

involves developing technology that


can be productive over the long-term, using resources in ways that meet
todays needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs, said Harry
A. Atwater, Ph.D., one of the speakers. Thats exactly what we are doing with these new solar-energy

The new photovoltaic technology uses abundant, lessexpensive materials like copper and zinc earth-abundant materials
instead of indium, gallium and other so-called rare earth elements.
conversion devices.

These substances not only are scarce, but are supplied largely by foreign countries, with China mining
more than 90 percent of the rare earths needed for batteries in hybrid cars, magnets, electronics and other

successful efforts to replace


rare earth and other costly metals in photovoltaic devices with materials that
are less-expensive and more sustainable. Atwater, a physicist at the California Institute of
high-tech products. Atwater and James C. Stevens, Ph.D., described

Technology, and Stevens, a chemist with The Dow Chemical Company, lead a partnership between their
institutions to develop new electronic materials suitable for use in solar-energy-conversion devices.

development and testing of new devices made with


zinc phosphide and copper oxide that broke records for both electrical current
and voltage achieved by existing so-called thin-film solar energy conversion
devices made with zinc and copper. The advance adds to evidence that
materials like zinc phosphide and copper oxide should be capable of
achieving very high efficiencies, producing electricity at a cost approaching
that of coal-fired power plants. That milestone could come within 20 years, Atwater said.
Atwater and Stevens described

Stevens helped develop Dows PowerHouse Solar Shingle, introduced in October 2011, which generates
electricity and nevertheless can be installed like traditional roofing.

***Nuclear Renaissance DA

1NC Shell
The Renaissance is now- investment level is sufficient and
will solve warming
Silverstein, contributor to Forbes specializing in
international energy policy, 3/9
[Ken, 3/9/14, Forbes, Nuclear Power rising at the Expense of Renewable
Power, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/03/09/nuclearenergy-rising-at-the-expense-of-renewable-power/, 7/17/14, JA]
Just before the Fukushima disaster hit three years ago, nuclear energy had
been standing tall. But the earthquake and giant waves knocked out the legs
from under the fuel source, killing Japans nuclear ambitions as well as that of
some other nations that had a robust nuclear power presence. The tsunami
turned Japans world upside down. But it also dazed a global community that
had planned to crank up the nuclear dial a notch. Some countries such as
Germany, Italy and Sweden have chosen to scale back their nuclear
production and to increase their renewable generation to help the continent
meet its carbon reductions goals. But others, like China and the United
Kingdom, are revving up their nuclear programs. By 2020, Europe is
supposed to have cut its carbon emissions by 20 percent something for
which it is set to do, with a little help from the global recession. After that,
however, it may switch to give individual countries more flexibility by setting
an overall European Union target of 40 percent by 2030. Why the proposed
changes? Renewables have high costs and they are a challenge to integrate
on to the grid. The continents biggest green producers, Germany and Spain,
have tempered their spirit given that the annual price to customers is about
$32.5 billion in both countries. Both Germany and Spain get about 23 percent
of their energy from renewables. But Germany plans to cut those subsidies by
$2.5 billion while Spain will slash $3.5 billion. At the same time, utilities with
offshore wind energy interest in the UK are scrapping their construction
plans: Iberdrola s ScottishPower wont build what was to be the worlds
largest offshore wind farm, saying that it would be infeasible. And the
Guardian newspaper reports that Germanys RWE and British-owned Centrica
have both pulled out of potential offshore wind deals. It is our view that the
Argyll Array project is not financially viable in the short term As
construction techniques and turbine technology continues to improve, we
believe that the Argyll Array could become a viable project in the long term,
which is defined here as 10-15 years, says Jonathan Cole, head of offshore
wind development for ScottishPower. What now? Nuclear energy is getting off
of its knees and it is perched to rebound, at least in certain parts of the world:
In the United States, four reactors at two plants are under construction while
the U.S. Department of Energy has been increasing funding for advanced
nuclear research and development. Meantime, China, Korea, the UAE, Saudi
Arabia and the UK are advancing nuclear production to address air pollution

and climate concerns. China has 20 nuclear plants today and 28 more under
construction 40 percent of all projected new nuclear units, says the World
Nuclear Association. A similar dynamic exists in the UK, which approved the
construction of two reactors at Hinkley Point that will provide 7 percent of the
UKs electricity. It will hopefully open the flood gates and unlock further
investment in the sector, introducing a new phase of activity to deliver a fleet
of new nuclear reactors generating low carbon electricity in the UK, says
Daniel Grosvenor, head of Deloittes UK nuclear practice. It also shows that
the UK can attract the international investment our energy sector desperately
needs. The deal, which was announced in October 2013 must still receive
permission from the European Commission: Electricite de France will own 4050 percent while another French national, Areva , will own 10 percent.
Meantime, two Chinese national entities will own 30-40 percent. A shortlist of
companies will buy the remaining 15 percent. The goal is to be operational by
2023. Significantly, some high profile climate scientists are hitting the lecture
circuit and publishing their views to express that higher percentages of
nuclear energy are essential to combating climate change. They, in turn, are
asking their environmental brethren to embrace this position and to quit
viewing nuclear energy from the perspective of 1979 when the partial
meltdown at Three Mile Island occurred. All this is happening after the release
of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change latest findings, which
have concluded with 95 percent certainty that humans are mostly responsible
for global warming. In 2007, it made the same assertion but with 90 percent
assurance. Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the
expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the
risks associated with fossil fuels, write the scientists, who include James
Hanson at the Columbia University Earth Institute. The Environmentalists
long-standing view of nuclear energy has relaxed but it has not changed.
Renewables, they say, are both cheaper and safer. In this country, they point
out that five nuclear plants have been forced to close in the last year. Three
of those are because the facilities cannot compete with cheaper combined
cycle natural gas facilities and two have been tied to ongoing technical
issues, one of which involved uncommon vibrations and a small radiation
leak. The Center for American Progress says that even if every major
environmental organization halted its opposition to nuclear energy, the
industry would still stumble. Its a function of economics that developers
can get other types of plants up-and-running much quicker and a lot cheaper.
Southern Companys two nuclear units that are going up in Georgia are now
expected to cost $15.5 billion, of which a federal loan guarantee will cover
more than half. Major energy transitions are lengthy, says Michael
Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute, in an interview.
Moving from wood to coal took more than a century while shifting from coal
to natural gas is taking just as long. Renewables are getting there, he adds,
although it will require activist governments. But nuclear generation is here
and now, he emphasizes. Nuclear power is already providing 20 percent of
our power in the United States and 80 percent of the electricity in France,
says Shellenberger. The right questions are how do we encourage a

transition to it and how do we make it cheaper, and not to dismiss it


because of a stale mindset.

Government backed renewables trade off with nuclear


energy- empirics prove
Johnsson, contributor to Bloomberg specializing in
economics and energy, 13
[Julie, 3/11/13, Bloomberg, Nuclear Industry Withers in U.S. as Wind
Pummels Prices, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-11/nuclearindustry-withers-in-u-s-as-wind-pummels-prices-energy.html, 7/17/14, JA]
A glut of government-subsidized wind power may help accomplish a goal
some environmentalists have sought for decades: kill off U.S. nuclear power
plants while reducing reliance on electricity from burning coal. Thats the
assessment of executives and utility experts after the U.S. wind-energy
industry went on a $25 billion growth binge in 2012, racing to qualify for a
federal tax credit that was set to expire at years end. The surge added a
record 13,124 megawatts of wind turbines to the nations power grid, up 28
percent from 2011. The new wind farms increased financial pressure on
traditional generators such as Dominion Resources (D) Inc. and Exelon Corp.
in their operating regions. Thats because wind energy undercut power prices
already driven to 10-year-lows by an abundance of natural gas. Right now,
natural gas and wind power are more economic than nuclear power in the
Midwestern electricity market, Howard Learner, executive director of the
Environmental Law and Policy Center, a Chicago-based advocate of cleaner
energy, said in a phone interview. Its a matter of economic
competitiveness. Wind-generated electricity supplied about 3.4 percent of
U.S. demand in 2012 and the share is projected to jump to 4.2 percent in
2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Photographer:
Konrad Fiedler/Bloomberg Wind-generated electricity supplied about 3.4
percent of U.S. demand in 2012 and the... Read More The wind power boom
has benefited consumers in regions where wind development is fastest,
contributing to a 40 percent wholesale power-price plunge since 2008 in the
Midwest, for example. Yet the surplus is creating havoc for nuclear power and
coal generators that sell their output into short-term markets. Perfect Storm
The impact is greatest in the capacity-glutted Midwest. There, Richmond,
Virginia-based Dominion is closing a money- losing reactor and selling coal
plants, Exelon warns of shrinking nuclear margins and an Edison International
(EIX) merchant coal-plant unit has gone into bankruptcy. Its a perfect
storm, said Charley Parnell, a Chicago- based spokesman for Edisons
Midwest Generation unit, in a phone interview. Pricing, already under
pressure from cheap natural gas and the lingering effects of recession, now
has a wind factor. Wind absolutely plays a part in that, he said, especially
in the off-peak hours. Atomic-power providers complain that the upheaval is
an example of government subsidies distorting the market -- to the particular
detriment of nuclear which provides 19 percent of the nations electricity, is

clean and has proved safe despite perennial concern by activists that it poses
a danger to public safety. Prices Below Zero Wind power has two advantages.
Green energy laws in many states require utilities to buy wind energy under
long-term contracts as part of their clean-energy goals and take that power
even when they dont need it. Wind farms also receive a federal tax credit of
$22 for every megawatt-hour generated. Thus, even when there is no
demand for the power they produce, operators keep turbines spinning,
sending their surplus to the grid because the tax credit assures them a profit.
On gusty days in the five states with the most wind power - - Texas,
California, Iowa, Illinois and Oregon -- this can flood power grids, causing
prices to drop below zero during times when demand is light. Wholesale
electricity during off-peak hours in Illinois has sold for an average price of
$23.39 per megawatt hour since Jan. 1, after hitting a record low of -$41.08
on Oct. 11, the least since the Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator Inc. began sharing real-time pricing in 2005. Negative Prices
Meanwhile, nuclear and coal plants must continue running even as this
negative pricing dynamic forces them to pay grid operators to take the
power they produce. It is becoming more pronounced as more wind is
coming on, Christopher Crane, chief executive officer of Chicago- based
Exelon Corp. (EXC), said in a phone interview. If the push to over-develop
subsidized wind continues, there is a very high probability that existing safe,
reliable nuclear plants will no longer be competitive and will have to be
retired early, according to Crane. More development seems a certainty. Wind
power got another boost when Congress, as part of Januarys deficit deal,
extended the production tax credit through Dec. 31, amending current law so
that projects begun this year will receive the 10-year tax break regardless of
when they come online. Defending Wind While few new projects are expected
to be built out this year due to developers mad dash at the end of 2012, we
think 2014 will pick up again, said Rob Gramlich, interim CEO of the
American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. Gramlich doubts wind
power is the chief reason that spot- market power producers like Exelon are
suffering a profit drain. Low prices are due to a lot of things, mostly shale
gas, he said. But to some extent wind does reduce power prices and thats
a good thing for homes and businesses. Natural gas is fuel for a growing
number of U.S. power plants because of its cost advantage and new
environmental rules for coal. Wind is gaining as turbine costs plummet -- they
are down one-third since 2010 -- and technology gains make windmills
economical in states with lower average wind speeds. Google Inc. (GOOG) is
investing $1 billion in wind and solar projects and Warren Buffetts
MidAmerican Energy Holdings, Iowas largest utility owner, owns 6 percent of
U.S. wind-energy capacity and has invested about $13 billion in renewable
energy. Tenfold Rise U.S. wind installations have risen 10-fold since 2003 to
60,007 megawatts, attracting $120 billion investment that has produced new
capacity equivalent to 14 nuclear power plants and enough to power 14.7
million homes, the AWEA, the industry group based in Washington, D.C., said
in a Jan. 30 report. Winds rapid gains have created headaches for grid
operators since winds often blow strongest when homes and businesses use

the least amount of power: at night and during the spring and fall seasons,
said Paul Patterson, a New York- based analyst with Glenrock Associates LLC.
I think this models got problems with it, Patterson said in a phone
interview. There are not many examples where the product you produce
actually has negative value. Before 2006, when wind power began its latest
growth spurt, negative prices were extremely rare. The phenomenon is now
prevalent in parts of the Midwest, Texas and the West Coast where turbine
installations are growing fastest, data compiled by Bloomberg show. We
cant find enough demand for the amount of energy created by Mother
Nature, said Doug Johnson, spokesman for the Bonneville Power
Administration, which manages the grid in the Pacific Northwest. The
transmission operator, based in Portland, Oregon, paid wind operators $2.7
million last year to stay off line so it could make room for the power from
hydroelectric generators handling the runoff from melting mountain snows.
Wind vs Fossil Fuels The surge in wind generation is also squeezing the
number of hours that fossil-fuel plants are needed to supply some windheavy markets, said Michael Blaha, the principal analyst of North American
power research for Wood Mackenzie Ltd. in Houston. It makes it
economically harder for fossil units because when the winds up, its going to
start depressing prices, he added. Negative prices are starting to seep into a
Southern California power hub and may become more frequent as state
regulations mandate that 33 percent of its power come from renewable
sources by 2020, Blaha said. That extra amount is going to knock out about
15 percent of energy filled by fossil fuels. Exelon in Illinois Exelon, the
largest U.S. nuclear operator, says a surplus of wind power is making
negative pricing a problem in Illinois, where it owns six nuclear plants and a
wind project. Prices for markets served by Exelons Clinton and Quad Cities
reactors trade below zero between 8 percent and 14 percent of off-peak
hours, said Joseph Dominguez, Exelons senior vice-president for
governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy. Exelon cut its quarterly
dividend for the first time Feb. 7, after reporting a 38 percent decline in
fourth-quarter profit on lower power prices and higher nuclear fuel costs.
Wind generators ignore that price signal in order to chase the federal tax
credit, Exelons Dominguez said in a telephone interview. Everyone else
that is producing electricity during that time period pays that negative $30
per megawatt-hour back to the system in the form of congestion charges.
The market should remain open and fair even in the very rare instances
when demand cant support two low-cost sources like wind and nuclear,
Gramlich of the wind trade group said. Just because one was there first
doesnt mean they automatically get the right of way to operate 24-7.

The Nuclear Renaissance is the only way to solve global


warming
Perry, contributor to Investors Business Daily, 6/9
[Mark, 6/9/14, Investors Business Daily, Alternative Energy no Substitute for
Clean Energy, http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-brain-trust/060914-

703954-mark-perry-nuclear-power-is-cleaner-than-the-greenalternatives.htm?nav=NewsLatest&p=3, 7/17/14, JA]


Wind and solar power, once viewed as our best hope for abundant supplies of
zero-carbon energy, are distracting us from what might be the real solution:
nuclear power. The time has come for states to reconsider their mandates
requiring that a share of electricity come from renewable energy sources, and
instead consider a more direct and sensible policy in support of nuclear
power. Currently 30 states have renewable power standards designed to
promote the use of wind and solar power, which are carbon-free, nonpolluting sources of energy. Among the most ambitious, California's standard
mandates that the state generate one-third of its electricity from renewables
by 2020. But the hype over wind and solar power as clean and renewable is
undermined by their fatal flaw intermittency. Realistically, you can't
produce wind and solar power when people need it. Electricity from both is
only available when nature cooperates. Power production fluctuates wildly,
depending on the weather. The amount of energy that the average wind
turbine produces annually is equal to just 20% to 30% of the amount of
energy that would result from year-round operation at full capacity, and there
is no proven storage technology that would make wind an around-the-clock
base-load provider. Marginal Return The capacity factor for solar power runs
closer to 20%. Together, wind and solar power contribute only marginally to
U.S. energy supplies, accounting for just over 4% of U.S. electricity production
in 2013, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. And they cannot
come close to replacing conventional sources of base-load power generation.
Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large areas of
land. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University has estimated that a wind farm
equivalent in output and capacity to a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant would
occupy 298 square miles. The solar photovoltaic equivalent would occupy 58
square miles. And wind turbines cause visual and noise pollution and kill huge
numbers of birds. Furthermore, as intermittent electricity sources, wind and
solar power must be backed up by standby generation that can be dispatched
on demand usually from natural gas. Emissions Washout To use more wind
and solar increases the need for backup power, and the associated emissions
that come with it will largely cancel out any emissions savings from
renewables. In short, wind and solar production won't make much of a
difference in reducing emissions, and meaningful levels of production have,
at best, a negligible positive impact. By contrast, nuclear power which is
not eligible for mandatory use under the renewable power standards
supplies nearly 20% of the nation's electricity. The clean little secret of recent
years is that nuclear power has performed very well. Nuclear power is our
zero-emission energy workhorse, providing 64% of the nation's zero-carbon
energy. Over the last decade, the U.S. fleet of around 100 nuclear plants has
generated electricity about 90% of the time. Thus, a 1,000-megawatt nuclear
plant produces three times more electricity than 1,000 megawatts of wind
turbines and four times more electricity than solar panels. Policymakers and
politicians have routinely ignored the impact that the mandate for renewable

power has had in more than half the country where electricity markets have
been deregulated. And the result has been a catastrophe for nuclear power,
with safe and efficient reactors either being shut down prematurely or at risk
of being shuttered for no good reason. In states where power is deregulated,
the wholesale price of electricity is set by auction, and when there is an
oversupply, the price naturally drops. When that happens, nuclear power
plants operate at a loss, and often end up having to pay to generate
electricity. The market distortion caused by negative prices makes it difficult
for nuclear power plants to recover their costs and discourages investment in
new generation. As a result, 30% of the U.S. nuclear fleet might be forced to
close within several years, and it's not because of their production costs,
which are competitive with natural gas, but because of the state energy
mandates. The Energy Information Administration forecasts a 28% increase in
U.S. power demand through 2040. Those who claim that solar and wind can
meet all of our electricity needs by then are engaged in fantasy. Renewables
cannot get us even halfway there. In fact, the renewable sources added in
recent years have made the electric system more fragile, because of their
intermittency problems.

Uniqueness
The Nuclear Renaissance is coming now- their evidence
doesnt assume new reactors which are safer, smaller and
more cost competitive
Bullis, Senior Editor specializing in Energy at MIT
Technology Review, 13
[Kevin, 8/19/13, MIT Technology Review, A Nuclear Reactor Cost Competitive
with Natural Gas, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/518116/a-nuclearreactor-competitive-with-natural-gas/, 7/18/14, JA]
A novel type of reactor could cut the cost of nuclear power by as much as 40
percent, making it far more competitive with fossil-fuel power plants.
Designed by General Atomics, a San Diegobased company, the reactor could
also be safer than existing reactors and reduce nuclear waste by 80 percent.
General Atomics has been working on the reactor for five years. Now it is
trying to win several hundred million dollars in funding from the U.S.
Department of Energy, which the company says would be crucial to
commercializing the technology. At least one other new design aims to
substantially reduce the cost of nuclear power, but its from a startup with
limited funding (see Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price). In the United
States, where natural gas is cheap, the main thing keeping utilities from
building nuclear plants is their expense. While some other new reactor
designs lower the up-front cost of nuclear power, they dont necessarily lower
electricity costs (see Can Small Reactors Ignite a Nuclear Renaissance?).
Estimates from the Energy Information Administration suggest that if the
General Atomics design cuts the cost of electricity by 40 percent as the
company claims, new nuclear power plants would be economically
competitive with natural-gas plants. John Parmentola, senior vice president of
the Energy Group at General Atomics, says the new reactor will be safer than
many conventional ones. In the case of a power failure, it is designed to shut
down and cool off without the need to continuously pump in coolant. This is
accomplished in part by using ceramics that can withstand very high
temperatures without melting. To reduce costs, General Atomics is making
the reactor smaller than conventional ones. Several other manufacturers are
taking the same approach, but this design goes further by substantially
increasing the efficiency of the power plant. Using helium as a coolant
instead of water allows the plant to operate at higher temperatures, and the
reactor also incorporates a new gas turbine for producing electricity. Thanks
to these changes, the technology can generate more power from a given
amount of heat produced in the reactor core. While conventional reactors
convert 32 percent of the energy in heat to electricity, this one is expected to
convert 53 percent.

The Nuclear Renaissance is coming now- new tech means


its cost competitive, international investment now, its a
base load source of energy and solves global warming
World Nuclear Association, an organization that
represents the people and the organizations of nuclear
energy, 2014
[January 2014, World Nuclear Association, The Nuclear Renaissance,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/The-NuclearRenaissance/, 7/19/14, JA]
Increasing energy demand, plus concerns over climate change and
dependence on overseas supplies of fossil fuels are coinciding to make the
case for increasing use of nuclear power.
China is embarking upon a huge increase in nuclear capacity to 58 GWe by
2020; India's target is to add 20 to 30 new reactors by 2030.
Communities in Finland and Sweden have accepted the local construction of
permanent disposal sites for nuclear waste.
International cooperation and commerce in the field of nuclear science and
technology is growing.
A WNA projection shows at least 1100 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2060, and
possibly up to 3500 GWe, compared with 373 GWe today.
Most of the increased capacity (over 80%) will be in countries which already
use nuclear power.
Since about 2001 there has been some talk, especially in the West, about an
imminent nuclear revival or "renaissance" which implies that the nuclear
industry has been dormant or in decline for some time. Whereas this may
generally be the case for the Western world, nuclear capacity has been
expanding in Eastern Europe and Asia. Globally, the share of nuclear in world
electricity has showed slight decline from about 17% to 11.5% since the mid1980s, though output from nuclear reactors actually increased, albeit not
enough to match the growth in global electricity consumption.
Today nuclear energy is firmly on the policy agendas of many countries, with
projections for new build similar to or exceeding those of the early years of
nuclear power. This signals a revival in support for nuclear power in the West
that was diminished by the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and
also by nuclear power plant construction cost overruns in the 1970s and
1980s, coupled with years of cheap natural gas.
The March 2011 Fukushima accident set back public perception of nuclear
safety, despite there being no deaths or serious radiation exposure from it
(while the direct death toll from the tsunami which caused it was some

19,000). Also the advent of shale gas has adversely changed the economics
of nuclear power in places such as North America.
Drivers for nuclear expansion today
The first generation of nuclear plants were justified by the need to alleviate
urban smog caused by coal-fired power plants. Nuclear was also seen as an
economic source of base-load electricity (ie continuous, relaible supply on a
large scale) which reduced dependence on overseas imports of fossil fuels.
Today's drivers for nuclear build have evolved:
Increasing energy demand
Global population growth in combination with industrial development will lead
to a doubling of electricity consumption from 2007 level by 2030. Besides this
incremental growth, there will be a need to replace a lot of old generating
stock in the USA and the EU over the same period. An increasing shortage of
fresh water calls for energy-intensive desalination plants, electric vehicles will
increase overnight demand, hence base-load (low cost) proportion of supply,
and in the longer term hydrogen production for transport purposes will need
large amounts of electricity and/or high temperature heat.
Security of Supply
A re-emerging topic on many political agendas is security of supply, as
countries realize how vulnerable they are to interrupted deliveries of oil and
gas. The abundance of naturally occurring uranium and the large energy yield
from each tonne of it makes nuclear power attractive from an energy security
standpoint. A year or two's supply of nuclear fuel is easy to store and
relatively inexpensive.
Climate change
Increased awareness of the dangers and possible effects of climate change
has led decision makers, media and the public to agree that the use of fossil
fuels must be reduced and replaced by low-emission sources of energy.
Popular sentiment focuses on renewables, but nuclear power is the only
readily-available large-scale alternative to fossil fuels for production of
continuous, reliable supply of electricity (ie meeting base-load demand).
Economics
Increasing fossil fuel prices have greatly improved the economics of nuclear
power for electricity, though this is temporarily countered by low gas prices in
the USA. Several studies show that nuclear energy is the most cost-effective
of the available base-load technologies, at least when natural gas prices are
high. In addition, as carbon emission reductions are encouraged through
various forms of government incentives and emission trading schemes, the
economic benefits of nuclear power will increase further.
Insurance against future price exposure

A longer-term advantage of uranium over fossil fuels is the low impact that
increased fuel prices will have on the final electricity production costs, since a
large proportion of those costs is in the capital cost of the plant. This
insensitivity to fuel price fluctuations offers a way to stabilize power prices in
deregulated markets.
Grid stability
Significant grid stability issues arise with high inputs from intermittent
renewable sources, and secure stable supply is enhanced by base-load
generation of any kind. However, balancing this technically and economically
with subsidised renewables having preferential feed-in access to the grid is a
difficult issue.
As the nuclear industry is moving away from small national programmes
towards global cooperative schemes, serial production of new plants will drive
construction costs down, as is already being shown in China, and further
increase the competitiveness of nuclear energy.
An enabling factor is the increasing ability of nuclear reactors to load-follow,
adjusting their output according to demand, so that they are less restricted to
steady base-load role. However in the short term this is only relevant where
nuclear power supplies more than about 60% of the power.
In practice, is a rapid expansion of nuclear power capacity possible?
Most reactors today are built in under five years (first concrete to first power),
with four years being state of the art and three years being the aim with
modular prefabrication. Several years are required for preliminary approvals
before construction.

The Nuclear Renaissance is happening now- public


support has skyrocketed and the tech is feasible
McMahon, contributor to Forbes specializing in green
energy and technology, 2012
[Jeff, 9/27/12, Forbes, The Nuclear Renaissance Is Back, Industry Panel
Says, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/09/27/the-nuclearrenaissance-is-back-industry-panel/, 7/17/14, JA]
Encouraged by a new poll showing public support, industry leaders predicted
Wednesday that nuclear power will resume the renaissance it was enjoying
before the Fukushima accident roiled the industry 18 months ago. The future
of nuclear is looking pretty good, said Jack Grobe, the executive director of
Exelon Nuclear Partners, striking a much more positive tone than former
Exelon CEO John Rowe did just six months ago. Grobe was among five

industry leaders who lauded The Future of Nuclear Wednesday at the Great
Lakes Symposium on Smart Grid and the New Energy Economy, held at the
Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. The panelists confidence stems in
part from the nations fleet of aging coal plants, which are not expected to
survive increasingly stringent environmental regulations. We will retire these
old fossil fuel plants and have to replace them with something, said Scott
Bond of Ameren Missouri, the utility that operates the Callaway Nuclear
Generating Station. The question is, what do you replace them with? One
obvious answer is a power plant that burns natural gas, which, thanks to
fracking, is now so cheap and plentiful that Rowe said in March that it doesnt
make sense for new nuclear plants to compete. Wednesdays panel touted
the stable price of nuclear fuel as insurance against the vagaries of most
other fuel prices including, over the long term, natural gas. Its not just an
economic question, said Exelons Jack Grobe. Its an energy diversity
question. Theres a lot of focus on gas right now, Bond said. But fuel
diversity is the only safe place to be for a utility. Nuclear power may have
stable fuel prices, but it faces an unstable regulatory environment subject to
public doubts and political winds. Thats why the Nuclear Energy Institute is
touting the results of a poll it released this week. We just did a survey, and
we had a strong majority of Americans81 percentwho believe that nuclear
energy is important for the nations future energy needs, said Alex Marion,
NEIs vice president for nuclear operations. Eighty-two percent believe the
U.S. should continue to develop nuclear energy to meet growing electricity
demand, and about the same percentage support the idea of renewing
operating plant licenses, as long as they meet NRC regulatory requirements.
And 74 percent believe the nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. are
safe and secure. So there is public support. Support for nuclear power had
dropped to 46 percent in the wake of the Fukushima accident, Marion said.
NEI conducts polls in part to encourage politicians to support nuclear power.
Many of them are hesitant to go public because theyre afraid their
constituents may not like nuclear and they dont want to upset their
constituents. So we develop these kinds of opinion surveys and we provide
them to Congressional staff and members of Congress. The panelists expect
new nuclear plants to take the form of small modular reactors and,
eventually, fast breeder reactors. They were much more optimistic about the
outlook for new reactor designs than a panel held at the University of Chicago
in the wake of the Fukushima accident. At that event, Hussein Khalil, director
of Argonnes Nuclear Energy Division, said safer reactor designs are impeded
by industry reluctance to invest in them. Wednesdays panelists said the
NRCs new one-step licensing procedure will overcome that obstacle.
Instead of seeking NRC approval for each new reactor design, a costly and
uncertain procedure, utilities will have the option of choosing from preapproved designs.

Nuclear energy is at the tipping point- status quo action


will be decisive
Froggatt & Schneider et al., nuclear energy consultants,
13
[Antony, Mycle, Komei Hosokawa, Professor for Environmental and Social
Research, Kyoto Seika University, Japan, Steve Thomas, Professor for Energy
Policy, Greenwich University, U.K., Yukio Yamaguchi, Co-director of the
Citizen's Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), Tokyo, Japan, Julie Hazemann,
Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France, Green Political Foundation, July 11 th
2013, World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20130716mscworldnuclearreport2013-hr-v4.pdf, 07/18/2014, PD]
On 29 June 2013, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) declared at the Ministerial Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia
that nuclear power will make a significant and growing contribution to
sustainable development in the coming decades. 17 The future will show
whether or not nuclear power will play an increasing role. In the meantime,
the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013 (WNISR) provides a reality
check of the current situation and trends of an industry that in the past has
rarely been able to fulfill its own promises. The 2012 edition of the WNISR
demonstrated that the IAEA consistently overestimated the development of
nuclear power in the world18, a side-effect of the leading role of the IAEA in
promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 19 Contrary to the IAEAs hopes
for the future, this edition of the WNISR shows that nuclear power generation
experienced a drop of 7 percent in 2012, larger even than the previous years
record 4 percent decline. As in previous editions, this report provides many
diverse health indicators of the nuclear industry, including numbers of
reactors operating, under construction, installed capacities, and extensive
country-by-country assessments of nuclear programs around the world. As in
the past two editions, a chapter is included that compares certain trends in
the nuclear industry with developments in the renewable energy industry.

New investment and innovation from companies have


ensured a nuclear renaissance will happen
Brewer, spent 15 years at world renowned Value Line, the
publisher of The Value Line Investment Survey, before
joining The Motley Fool Community, 3/9
[Rueben, 3/9/14, MotleyFool.com, Is this the Start of the Nuclear
Renaissance?, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/09/is-this-thestart-of-the-nuclear-renaissance.aspx, 7/19/14, JA]
Large-scale disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl have given the nuclear
power industry an image problem. However, there are signs that key nations
aren't giving up on nuclear with industry developments setting the stage for a

potentially bright future. The perfect example Fukushima is the perfect


example of nuclear's image problem. The reactors at this site were designed
by General Electric (NYSE: GE ) and put in place in the late sixties and early
seventies. They've been running without major problems for around 40 years.
However, like the airline industry, when something goes wrong at a nuclear
plant it usually goes wrong in a big way. Japan shut all of its reactors after the
Fukushima meltdown to help ensure that nothing like this ever happens
again. That, of course, is a good call, since it is better to be safe than sorry
especially when nuclear disasters are such large-scale events. However, GE is
still working in the nuclear space and, well, it's learned a lot over the last 40
years. (Source: US EPA) A new partnership For example, GE was involved in
the first commercially funded nuclear plant. Today, it has design options that
are three and four generations removed from that plant on the technology
front. The most recent designs, PRISM reactors, actually use spent nuclear
fuel to generate electricity. And it isn't the only one working on such fourthgeneration technology. For example, Babcock & Wilcox (NYSE: BWC ) has just
teamed up with Bill Gates backed TerraPower on its "Generation IV traveling
wave reactor (TWR)." That's a feather in Babcock & Wilcox's hat, and the
TerraPower reactor just happens to use depleted uranium as a fuel, too.
(Source: World Economic Forum, via Wikimedia Commons) Carbon is today's
hot buzzword, but nuclear plants also help avoid all of the other pollutants
that come from burning carbon-based fuels, too. And this commitment to
helping Southern build the first nuclear plants in the U.S. in 30 years shows
that, despite the disaster in Japan, the United States continues to see a role
for nuclear. Energy Department Secretary Ernest Moniz noted the deal as a
part of the government's efforts to "jump-start the U.S. nuclear power
industry." That technology, however, is the future -- so what about the
present? Southern Company (NYSE: SO ) just received $6.5 billion in
government loan guarantees for, "the construction of two new nuclear
reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant." According to The
U.S. Department of Energy, "The nuclear facility is eligible for loan
guarantees since it is expected to avoid nearly 10 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide emissions annually." Giving nuclear a second chance Even
Japan has decided it should revisit its total shutdown. For example, Grant
Isaac, CFO of pure-play uranium miner Cameco (NYSE: CCJ ) , noted late last
year that "There are six utilities representing 16 reactors that are currently in
the restart process" in Japan. Although no decisions have been made, it's
highly likely that Japan will eventually go nuclear again. As new technologies
from the likes of GE, Babcock & Wilcox, and TerraPower continue to improve
the safety and reliability of nuclear power, look for more support to build for
nuclear. In the meantime, watch developing nations like China and India.
While the U.S. is looking to "jump-start" its nuclear industry, Cameco expects
there to be three times as many reactors operating in China in 2022 (59) as
there were in 2013 (19). It projects that India will go from 21 reactors to 36.

The uranium industry is rising, signifying a nuclear


renaissance in the immediate future- uranium prices have
been the only factor holding the nuclear industry back
Guenther, the managing editor of The Rude Awakening.
Greg is a member of the Market Technicians Association
and holds the Chartered Market Technician designation,
3/5
[Greg, 3/5/14, DailyReckoning.com, The Return of the Nuclear
Renaissance, http://dailyreckoning.com/the-return-of-the-nuclearrenaissance/, 7/19/14, JA]
Three years ago the Nuclear Renaissance was getting underway. The price
of yellowcake uranium was on the rise, our resource maven Matt Insley
reminds us, and uranium miners were seeing their best run-up since 2007. Of
course, this was before the Japanese tsunami struck in 2011, creating a
nuclear disaster that threw the industry into a tailspin. As the Fukushima
disaster unfolded, the crippled Tokyo Electric Power Co. nuclear power plant
led to Japan suspending its fleet of reactors. And the nuclear panic didnt
stop there Uranium prices tumbled and miners quickly turned from
renaissance plays into retrenchment plays, Matt explains. Japan shuttered
its entire fleet of nuclear power plants and the outlook for the yellowcake was
uncertain. Heck, even Germany came out with an announcement that it too
would be shutting down its entire nuclear power plant fleet. Of course, there
was fallout. Uranium prices have slumped 47 percent since the March 2011
earthquake and tsunami, Bloomberg reports. In fact, most investors left many
uranium investments for dead. But right now, were seeing some serious
signs of life in this sector Global X Uranium ETF vs. S&P 500, 2014-Present
Flash forward three years and the uranium industry is dusting itself off,
Matt continues. Japan recently announced it would begin powering up its
nuclear power plants. This is music to the ears of miners and could be a
return to grace for a nuclear renaissance. The charts dont lie. Uraniumrelated plays are quickly becoming some of the best performing investments
of the year. You can see from the above chart that the Global X Uranium ETF
(NYSE:URA) is dominating the S&P 500 so far this year, rising more than 21%.
We suggest you keep an eye on this market as the year progresses.
Regards, Greg Guenthner for The Daily Reckoning P.S. In this mornings issue
of The Rude Awakening, I gave my readers a chance to discover an
opportunity to get their hands on even more power-packed uranium
investment ideas. Not only that, I also gave them a shot at discovering my
absolute favorite uranium play for 2014. And thats in addition to a complete
rundown of the trends Im currently following and 5 specific numbers to
watch as the trading day continues. If youre not reading The Rude

Awakening email edition, youre not getting the full story or any of the great
opportunities packed into every issue. Sign up for FREE right here, to fix that.

Link - Renewables
The only possible way renewables would be able to
compete with nuclear power would be through
governmental support like the aff
Mormamm, contributor to the New York Times and a
fellow at the Stanfords Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy
Policy and Finance, Reicher, executive director at
Stanfords Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and
Finance, 2012
[Felix and Dan, 6/1/12, The New York Times, How to Make Renewable Energy
Competitive, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/how-to-makerenewable-energy-competitive.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, JA, 7/18/14]
Renewable energy needs help. Technological innovation has significantly
reduced the cost of solar panels, wind turbines and other equipment, but
renewable energy still needs serious subsidies to compete with conventional
energy. Today, help comes mostly in the form of federal tax breaks. These tax
incentives, and the Congressional battle over extending them for wind
projects beyond the end of this year, mean that other, more powerful policies
to promote renewables are not getting the attention they deserve. If
renewable energy is going to become fully competitive and a significant
source of energy in the United States, then further technological innovation
must be accompanied by financial innovation so that clean energy sources
gain access to the same low-cost capital that traditional energy sources like
coal and natural gas enjoy. Two financial mechanisms that have driven
investment in traditional energy projects real estate investment trusts and
master limited partnerships could, with some help from Washington, be
extended to renewable energy projects to lower their cost and make
Americas energy future cleaner, cheaper and more democratic. Federal
support for renewable energy today consists primarily of two tax breaks: tax
credits and accelerated depreciation rates. But both tools have a very limited
reach. Only investors with hefty tax bills, typically big banks or corporations,
can exploit them to reduce their tax burden. Most potential investors,
including tax-exempt pension funds and, importantly, retail investors trading
stocks, dont have big enough tax bills to exploit the break. As a result, the
few remaining players whose considerable tax bills place them in the market
for tax breaks are able to demand returns of up to 30 percent for investing in
renewable energy projects an investment known as tax equity. There are
better options. They may sound wonky, but they could prove revolutionary.
Real estate investment trusts, or REITs, which are traded publicly like stocks,
could tap far broader pools of capital to vastly lower the cost of financing
renewable energy. REITs have a market capitalization of over $440 billion
while paying shareholders average dividends below 10 percent roughly a
third of the cost of tax equity investments for renewable energy. Master

limited partnerships carry the fund-raising advantages of a corporation:


ownership interests are publicly traded and offer investors the liquidity,
limited liability and dividends of classic corporations. Their market
capitalization exceeds $350 billion. With average dividends of just 6 percent,
these investment vehicles could substantially reduce the cost of financing
renewables. But current law makes using both of these investment vehicles
for renewable energy difficult if not impossible. Washington could help in two
ways. First, the Internal Revenue Service needs to clarify the eligibility of
renewable power generation for REIT financing. Second, Congress needs to
fix a bizarre distinction in the tax code that bars master limited partnerships
from investing in inexhaustible natural resources like the sun and wind,
while allowing investments in exhaustible resources like coal and natural gas.
In 2008, as surging gasoline prices were infuriating American voters,
Congress amended the tax code to enable master limited partnerships to
invest in alternative transportation fuels like ethanol. We should treat power
sources, like wind and solar farms, similarly. There is hope. Senator Chris
Coons, Democrat of Delaware, plans to introduce a bill to allow master limited
partnership investment in renewable energy. This approach is preferable to a
recent proposal by Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, and
Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, to eliminate this
investment option for fossil-fuel projects. Both moves would level the playing
field between conventional and renewable energy, but the Coons bill does so
by promoting, rather than limiting, economic growth across the energy
industry. These approaches could help renewable energy projects reduce
their financing costs up to fivefold. These cost improvements could
significantly reduce the price of renewable electricity and, over time, erase
the need for costlier subsidies. Of course, making renewable energy eligible
for master limited partnership and REIT financing would amount to a new
kind of subsidy, because both are exempt from income tax. Indeed, some
members of Congress fear that expanding master limited partnerships will
erode the federal tax base. We dont think so. Investors in master limited
partnerships and REITs still pay taxes on dividends. Moreover, these
investments would most likely bring many more renewable energy projects
online, actually raising overall tax revenue. A more valid concern is whether
renewable energy master limited partnerships might be abused as tax
shelters, reminiscent of what happened in the 1980s California wind rush.
Back then investors cared more about putting turbines in the ground to
secure tax credits to lower their tax bill on other income than whether the
machines actually produced electricity. History, however, need not repeat
itself. Renewable energy master limited partnerships can guard against such
abuse by ensuring that these tax privileges actually result in green electricity.
Theres another benefit to expanding the pool of renewable energy investors:
It would help democratize, and thus build support for, these new energy
sources. Today, all American taxpayers fund renewable energy subsidies, but
only a deep-pocketed few can cash in on the tax benefits. Publicly traded
master limited partnerships and REITs would empower all Americans to invest
and have a stake in the transition to cleaner energy. Renewable energy has

come a long way since the 1970s energy crisis but much work remains. We
must complement continued technological innovation with critical financial
innovation to level the playing field, incentivize growth, reduce subsidies
and democratize Americas energy future.

Renewables investment is zero-sum with nuclear


Environmental News Network, news station that focuses
on environmental issues, 13
[ENN, 07/18/2013, ENN, Renewable Energy Sources On the Rise
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/46227, 07/18/2014, PD]
The reasons why we are turning to renewables isn't purely environmental as
the rise in renewables is tied to both prices (the underlying cost of solar
panels and wind turbines has gone down) and policy (government incentives
to installers of equipment or renewable energy targets in various states),
Simon said. Overall, Americans used 2.2 quadrillion BTU, or quads, less in
2012 than the previous year (BTU or British Thermal Unit is a unit of
measurement for energy; 3,400 BTU is equivalent to about 1 kW-hr). Out of
the renewables, wind power saw the highest percentage gains, going from
1.17 quads produced in 2011 up to 1.36 quads in 2012. New wind farms
continue to come on line with bigger, more efficient turbines that have been
developed in response to government-sponsored incentives to invest in
renewable energy. Solar jumped from 0.158 quads in 2011 to 0.235 quads in
2012. This can be attributed to declining prices of photovoltaic panels. The
charts also show that 2012 is the first year in at least a decade where there
has been a measurable decrease in nuclear energy. "It is likely to be a
permanent cut as four nuclear reactors recently went offline (two units at San
Onofre in California as well as the power stations at Kewaunee in Wisconsin
and Crystal River in Florida)," Simon said. "There are a couple of nuclear
plants under construction, but they won't come on for another few years."

Renewables incentives and investment trade off with


nuclear power
Woods, journalist, 13
[Lucy, 07/12/2013, Photovoltaics International, Report: Renewable energy
overtaking declining nuclear, http://www.pvtech.org/news/solar_overtakes_nuclear_in_global_energy_output, 07/18/2014,
PD]
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013, published yesterday, was
written by numerous academics and independent energy consultants as a
reality check on global use of nuclear energy. It claims that with global
electricity generation from nuclear decreasing historically by 7% last year,
nuclear power is in decline as a power source compared to renewable

energies. The report singled out solar and wind as energy forms that were
beginning to rival nuclear. It said that 80% of those it surveyed thought
renewables would be able to compete with major power and utilities sectors,
and that all forms of solar will not need subsidies to compete by 2030. The
largest investment in renewable energy was in utility-scale renewable energy
parks, and second was in rooftop solar PV installations. A graph in the report
shows in 2011, a peak of US$300 billion was invested in new renewables in
comparison with just a few billion on new nuclear projects, calling the total
investment in nuclear as nearly an order of magnitude lower than that for
renewable energy. One of solars major advantages over nuclear is the
average construction time, at 8-15 years depending on the countries
experience. The report states the costs of renewable energy construction has
fallen, whereas nuclear energy construction costs have risen. The report
claims that now new nuclear power plants are amongst the most expensive
generation options available. There is significantly less construction and
growth of nuclear, or plants are running for fewer hours, producing less
energy and lowering prices to compete with other energy sources. Now
nuclear investment and deployment has been outstripped by renewable
energy and renewables are now seen as a major competition, it said.

Impact - Warming
Nuclear Energy is a baseload power source that will solve
warming- licensing and technological improvements have
made it cost competitive
Stepp, Energy Trends Insider for CS Science, 13
[Mathew, 6/18/13, CS Science, Fighting Climate Change with Nuclear
Energy, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/EnergyVoices/2013/0618/Fighting-climate-change-with-nuclear-energy, 7/18/14, JA]
In the last week, two news stories really captured the potential future for
nuclear energy. The New York Times Matthew Wald reported from Georgia,
where construction crews are slowly building the first two new nuclear
reactors in thirty years. And National Geographics Will Ferguson reported
from Tennessee that engineers and scientists are taking core samples and
mapping regional geology as part of the early planning stages of building the
first small modular nuclear reactor in the world. Both projects face unique
challenges, yet they both represent the beginning of two potential nuclear
paths for reducing climate-warming carbon emissions in the United States
(and potentially the world). Big-Box Nuclear Energy Innovation in Georgia The
nuclear generators we are all familiar with is physically recognized by large,
curved cooling towers and billowing white steam, and pragmatically
recognized as a significant source of carbon-free electricity. Big-box nuclear
reactors across the United States provide about 19 percent of all electricity.
But for thirty years, the nuclear energy industry has remained stagnant. Due
to a mix of factors including more stringent regulation, rising construction
costs, falling fossil fuel prices, and the Three Mile Island meltdown, no new
nuclear power plants were developed. That changed in 2009, when the
Department of Energy provided an $8.3 billion loan guarantee for the Alvin
Vogtle nuclear project, aimed at constructing two new reactors. In 2012, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave its approval and construction
began. Vogtle, along with the two reactors under construction at the Virgil
Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina, represent the nextgeneration of large-scale, traditional nuclear power. Recommended: US
energy in five maps (infographics) In particular, the $14 billion 2234 MW
Vogtle project utilizes two innovations, one regulatory and the other
technological. The first innovation is the projects use of the NRCs combined
construction and operating licensing agreement. Previous to Vogtle, nuclear
plants received one NRC license previous to construction and then one after
construction, but before operation. The split-process added considerable cost
and delay to new power plant construction, which in some cases stalled or
completely stopped operation of constructed plant. Most famously, the
Shoreham nuclear site on Long Island incurred cost overruns due to NRC
regulatory changes and ultimately never began full operation after local
authorities failed to provide evacuation plans required for licensing. Instead

the new combined license process requires overcoming development barriers


before construction begins. The NRC does so by pre-approving the reactor
design, which provides regulatory certainty and reduces potential cost
overruns during construction. NRC pre-approved Vogtles (and Summers)
chosen reactor design the Westinghouse AP1000 in 2011. The second
innovation is the AP1000 nuclear reactor design itself. Its the most advanced
pressurized water reactor ready for commercial use and purports to be safer
and more reliable than existing reactors. In particular, the AP1000 utilizes a
passive cooling system that can automatically keep the reactor safe from
meltdown for at least three days without any operator interaction. It also
produces more energy, but houses less pumps, pipes, and valves compared
to previous generation designs, further increasing safety and reducing costs.
Small-Box Nuclear Energy Innovation in Tennessee While the nuclear industry
continues to push for more construction of big-box nuclear plants, emerging
technologies are showing progress. In particular, small modular nuclear
reactors (SMRs) are taking the first step from theoretical design to
commercial pilot projects. SMR innovations potentially solve a key problem
with traditional nuclear technologies: up-front costs. While nuclear-generated
electricity is relatively cheap once operation begins, it can cost $10 to $20
billion to successfully develop a new plant something only a handful of
energy companies are capable of doing even with federal loan guarantees.
SMR companies believe they can construct a plant for roughly $2 billion, or
one-fifth the cost. Of course, one SMR reactor wont provide the same output
as one big-box reactor, but this actually creates flexibility. SMRs can be
stacked together to meet a particular regions power need, so less populated
regions can invest in less SMR reactors while more populous regions can add
more, if necessary. Power generators can also begin operating SMRs even
while installing additional modules, so energy companies can begin recouping
up-front costs much earlier than if building a large traditional reactor, which
cant be turned on until construction is complete. SMR companies hold that
additional cost reductions will come from the potential to mass-manufacture
SMR reactors and ship to construction sites rather than on-site assembly of
big-box plants (though, some parts of the Vogtle project are doing this as
well). In addition, SMRs provide unique safety benefits, such as the potential
for air-cooled passive safety systems, rather than traditional water cooled
systems used today, as well as the ability to remove the entire reactor in one
piece rather than disassemble it piece by piece. The Tennessee SMR project
developing along the Clinch River is the first demonstration under the
Department of Energys SMR program. Specifically, the DOE is investing $452
million over 5 years to accelerate the licensing of SMR designs to provide
regulatory certainty so that private companies can begin developing them
across the United States. Babcock & Wilcoxs mPower design an 180 MW
pressurized water reactor is the first to gain support from the program to
begin completing design certification, the aforementioned site geology, NRC
design licensing, and early-stage engineering activities. The project has
access to a unique partnership with the publically-funded Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), which could act as an end-use customer once the SMR is

constructed. DOE has a solicitation to support a second next-generation


design, which it intends to announce by the end of the year. Nuclear Energy
Innovations Role in Addressing Climate Change Nuclear is currently the only
carbon-free energy source that can provide base load electricity a
characteristic crucial to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. In
contrast, renewables at increasingly high penetration rates require either
utility-scale energy storage (which isnt cost or performance competitive yet)
or peaking natural gas plants to balance spikes in demand. In fact,
Californias carbon emissions are set to increasebecause it closed the San
Onofre nuclear generating station, which produced one-tenth of Californias
electricity, and is quickly working to replace it with a mix of natural gas and
renewable technologies. The same situation has occurred in Germany and
Japan. Like renewable energy the critical barriers to large-scale nuclear
deployment are cost and uncertainty. With big-box nuclear plants, cost and
construction setbacks continue to plague development. As Matthew Wald
found, Vogtles construction, is not going as planned, and that the
schedule which is closely linked to costhas slipped by at least 14 months
and possibly more. And as Will Ferguson reported, DOEs SMR support only
extends to licensing and early-siting, not construction. As of today, no power
provider, including the TVA, has agreed to actually finance the SMR
demonstration once licensing is complete. Up-front costs of big-box plants
and the valley-of-death support for SMRs are the most immediate barriers to
expanding nuclear power. Its not clear whether big-box nuclear energy will
ever reduce its cost-overruns and SMRs may make this issue entirely moot by
providing a cost-competitive alternative. And of course, these projects are in
addition to DOE research investments to develop next-generation designs,
materials, and safety technologies as well as continuing work in fusion
energy. Nonetheless, there is substantial opportunity to incorporate nextgeneration nuclear energy through either large, advanced reactors or
emerging SMR designs or both more significantly into a productive strategy
for reducing carbon emissions in the long and short term.

Nuclear powers great- empirically proven to be


economically feasible, already developed, and the only
viable alternative to fossil fuels
Dyson and Bennett, chairman of Millbrook Capital
Management and Senior Vice President for Public Affairs
@ Third Way, 07
[John and Matt, New York Times, 09/18/2007, Just say 'oui' to nuclear power,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/opinion/18ihtedbgdyson.1.7550206.html?_r=0, 07/18/2014, PD]
Global warming is positioned to be a hot issue in the 2008 U.S. presidential
election, and candidates in both parties must face directly the one large-scale

means of providing carbon-free electric power: nuclear energy. For


Democrats, that means acknowledging that we need more nuclear power and
that we must do something with the waste. Republicans must admit that we
should become more like France. In any case, the nuclear industry, which was
once in decline, is on the brink of substantial growth for the first time in 30
years. Demand is one reason. A growing population combined with the rise in
thirsty electric products, means an estimated 45 percent increase in demand
for power in the United States by 2030. We'll need massive new generating
capacity to meet that demand. And while we must do better at conservation
and renewable energies, nuclear power is the only mature, large-scale source
of power that is essentially carbon-free. In 2005, nuclear power produced 19
percent of all electricity in the United States; solar made up 1/30 of 1 percent.
If we don't build substantial new nuclear capacity, the alternative isn't going
to be wind farms and solar arrays - it's going to be fossil-fueled, carbonspewing plants.

Nuclear energy is a natural solution to warmingarguments against nuclear power are the result of
polarizing global warming discourse, not evidentiary
support
Angwin, former project manager @ Electric Power
Research Institute, 12
[Meredith, 07/11/2012, The Energy Collective, Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear
Energy: The Great Divide and How to Cross It,
http://theenergycollective.com/meredith-angwin/92451/carbon-dioxide-andnuclear-energy-great-divide-and-how-cross-it, 07/18/2014, PD]
To some extent, these attitudes show logical disconnects. Nuclear is a lowcarbon choice. If a person claims to be very concerned with global warming
and is also against nuclear energy---that person is showing a logical
disconnect, in my opinion. Nuclear is preferable to fossil. Even without
considering global warming, there are many reasons to prefer nuclear to
fossil power. I moved into nuclear energy in the early 80s. (I had been
working in renewables and fossil.) In those days, people were not concerned
about global warming. I still saw many advantages of nuclear over fossil
fuels. An Interview with an Environmentalist In the "Cult Versus Cult" article,
Tucker quotes William McKibben, a well-known author and Scholar in
Residence at Middlebury College in Vermont. McKibben is very active in
fighting global warming. He founded 350.org, which describes itself as a
"global movement to solve the climate crisis." (I am happy to note that the
350.org website doesn't bash nuclear.) In the article, Tucker describes a scene
at a solar festival. McKibben had just addressed the group. Tucker notes that
many of McKibben's followers are wearing "Close VY" buttons, and Tucker
asks McKibben why he doesn't support nuclear power. Tucker wrote:
McKibben looked wistfully at the hillside filled with long-haired hippies. "I
understand what you're saying," he said. "But supporting nuclear right now

would split this movement in half." UPDATE: Bill McKibben has emailed me to
say that this quote does not reflect his opinions. He has also commented on
the original post at Yes Vermont Yankee. I include his entire comment below.
This story about me isn't accurate. I've been opposed to Vermont Yankee for a
long time--it's badly run, and its owners have repeatedly lied to people. I
believe Vt. is completely capable of replacing (and far more) its power output
with renewables, which is why my roof is covered with solar panels. Founding
a Movement With 350.org, McKibben founded a global movement to solve the
climate crisis. In the quote above, he says that supporting nuclear would hurt
that movement. To me, this implies that he is more interested in the growth
of his movement than in carbon dioxide results for the planet. But what about
me? There's an old saying that when you point a finger at someone else, look
where the other fingers are pointing. I just pointed at McKibben, and the
other fingers are pointing back at me. I'm trying to encourage people to
support the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. It's a smaller scale
movement than "solving the climate crisis," but Howard Shaffer and I are
growing a pro-nuclear, pro-Vermont Yankee movement. What are we willing to
do to support it? Well, among other things, in order to support the proVermont Yankee movement, I rarely talk about global warming. The Divide I
personally think the world-wide carbon dioxide increase is mostly man-made
and causes some level of global warming. I think global warming is a threat to
human life and health, but it is not the most over-arching threat we face. In
the past few years, many environmentalists have embraced nuclear power
because of their concern with global warming. However, a significant portion
of the people who support Vermont Yankee do not think global warming is a
threat. This divide is not just an issue for Vermont. It's a bigger issue. Global
warming divides people in many areas, and it divides the pro-nuclear
community. For example, one pro-nuclear discussion board has banned
discussion of global warming because people were getting too acrimonious.
For myself, I rarely talk about global warming in context of Vermont Yankee. I
know the discussion could get too acrimonious, and I could alienate some of
the plant's supporters. Apparently, McKibben doesn't talk about nuclear
power in his "solve climate change" movement. He probably has the same
reasons: talking about nuclear power could get too acrimonious, and he could
alienate some of his supporters. Are McKibben and I birds of a feather? At one
level, yes. We are two people, dealing with the huge climate-change divide
and trying to keep our supporters . At another level, our strategies are quite
different. Though McKibben and I seem to be good illustrations for the
problem, I don't want to keep writing only about the two of us. "How people
speak about global warming" is a more general issue. The Difference If a pronuclear speaker decided to talk about nuclear energy as helping to prevent
global warming, that person would gain some supporters and lose some. If an
environmentalist admitted that nuclear energy could help prevent global
warming, that person would also gain some supporters and lose some. So far,
the situations seem parallel. However, these strategies are not actually
parallel. If the nuclear supporter decides not to talk about global warming,
that person is choosing her rhetoric, not her technology. I can make several

arguments in favor of nuclear power. Global warming is one pro-nuclear


argument, but I rarely use it. In other words, I select my rhetoric: global
warming is very controversial, and it pulls the discussion into directions which
are not relevant to Vermont Yankee. However, if an environmentalist decides
not to talk about nuclear for fear of losing followers, that person is selecting
technologies based on what the followers will accept. That is more than a
rhetorical choice. The choice of technologies will affect the results of climate
change strategies. Another Environmentalist (maybe) for Nuclear Power
Some environmentalists have embraced nuclear energy, but others have not.
I am cheered by the ones (like Stewart Brand, George Monbiot and Gwyneth
Cravens) who endorse nuclear power. I hope that McKibben may someday
bridge the great climate-change divide and join them. Still, in the bottom line,
this is not about McKibben, and it's not about me. The problem is the great
Climate Change Divide. It's almost impossible for anyone to have a truthful
conversation amidst so much acrimony and hatred.

Renewables cant solve warming- nuclear energy is the


only alternative to fossil fuels
Kloor, professor of environmental journalism @ NYU, 13
[Keith, 01/14/2013, Slate Magazine, The Pro-Nukes Environmental
Movement,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/nuc
lear_energy_and_climate_change_environmentalists_debate_how_to_stop_glo
bal.html, 07/18/2014, PD]
James Hansen, NASAs top climate scientist, is one of the most impassioned
and trusted voices on global warming. People listen closely to what he says
about how drastically the climate is changing.
But when Hansen suggests what to do about it, many of those same people
tune him out. Some even roll their eyes. What message is he peddling that
few seemingly want to hear? Its twofold: No. 1, solar and wind power cannot
meet the worlds voracious demand for energy, especially given the projected
needs of emerging economies like India and China, and No. 2, nuclear power
is our best hope to get off of fossil fuels, which are primarily responsible for
the heat-trapping gases cooking the planet.
Many in the environmental community say that renewable energy is a viable
solution to the climate problem. So do numerous energy wonks, including two
researchers who penned a 2009 cover story in Scientific American asserting
that wind, water, and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the
worlds energy by 2030. Hansen calls claims like this the equivalent of
believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
Hes not the only environmental luminary who is bullish on nuclear power.
Last year, Columbia Universitys Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute,
echoed Hansens argument. A number of other champions of nuclear power

have stepped forward in recent years, from Australian climate scientist Barry
Brook to American writer Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the
World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy. A breakaway group in the traditionally
no-nukes environmental movement has also begun advocating passionately
for nuclear power. That story is the subject of a new documentary that is
premiering this month at the Sundance Festival.
These are not corporate stooges of the nuclear industry; to a person, their
embrace of nuclear power is motivated by a deep concern about climate
change and the conviction that no other carbon-free source of energy is
sufficient (and safe) enough to replace coal and gas. They see themselves as
realists who want to solve the full equation of global warming and energy, not
a fantasy version of the problem.
The stark reality of the challenge at hand is that the global politics of climate
change has stalled. Few countries are willing to make economic sacrifices to
reduce their carbon emissions.
Another reality is this: Coal is the source of nearly half the worlds energy. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report last month projecting that
the trend will increase throughout the decade. In fact, according to IEA
executive director Maria van der Hoeven, the world will burn around 1.2
billion more tons of coal per year by 2017 compared to todayequivalent to
the current coal consumption of Russia and the United States."
Hoeven said the the biggest hope for reducing emissions from coal plants
globally was natural gas, which has already started to happen in the United
States. Although natural gas is cleaner than coal, it too is a major source of
greenhouse gases and prolongs our dependence on dirty energy. Then there
is the controversial issue of fracking. The drilling technology has helped usher
in a huge gas boom but has also triggered much grassroots opposition due to
a new set of environmental concerns. Prominent greens were touting natural
gas as a bridge to a clean energy future just a few years back, but if
anything, gas seems to have put off investments in clean energy.
Where does that leave us? Some environmentalists continue to insist that
renewable energy (primarily solar and wind) can provide enough juice to
power the world. The Energy Collective, a site that boasts the worlds best
thinkers on energy & climate, recently put up a piece titled: 100 Percent
Renewable: The Only Way Forward. (In fairness, the site features a broad
range of views.) The article describes the climate imperative and states: If
human beings are to preserve modernity and planetary habitability, we must
soon shift to 100 percent renewable energy in all sectors.
This is, to put it charitably, wishful thinking. Renewable energy analyst Vaclav
Smil lays out the major drawbacks with wind and solar: The energy it
produces is intermittent, there is marginal storage capacity, it is still too
costly, and it takes too long to scale up to become a meaningful substitute for

coal. Community opposition to the industrialized footprint of solar


installations and wind farms is increasing.

AT: Proliferation Turn


New technology and international organizations solve
proliferation
Grape, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala
University, Svard, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Uppsala University, 6/26
[Sophie, Staffan Jacobbson, 6/26/14, New perspectives on nuclear power
Generation IV nuclear energy systems to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation
and support nuclear disarmament, Energy Policy, Volume 10: Number 16,
276-291, JA]
There are many reasons to believe that nuclear power will play an important
role in future society, together with a mix of other energy sources. Nuclear
power offers to deliver large, reliable quantities of electricity associated with
low greenhouse-gas emissions, which proves more important by the day.
Accordingly, current large international efforts should be continued to
develop Gen IV nuclear energy systems, with the aim to provide dean, longterm sustainable, safe, economic and efficient electricity production. Among
the new perspectives that Gen IV systems bring are their capability to
contribute to the world's security in additional, valuable ways as compared
to today's nuclear power, by offering means to control and reduce the
amount of nuclear waste generated, and to aid the nuclear disarmament
process by turning warheads into peaceful electricity. In this paper, we have
shown an example of how a country with considerable use of nudear power
can launch fast reactors to control and reduce the amounts of plutonium
generated, and thereby mitigating the proliferation hazard. The operation of
these Gen IV systems can be extended until other climate-friendly, reliable
energy systems are implemented, and accelerator-driven burners enable a
complete destruction of the country's plutonium inventory. There are many
challenges associated with Gen IV nuclear energy systems: technical as well
as political and social. In this context, nuclear safeguards and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is highly important, especially as nuclear
safeguards will become more challenging with an envisaged expansion of
nuclear technology. Accordingly, Safeguards-by-Design principles should be
implemented, allowing for more reliable, efficient and eco- nomic
international safeguarding of sensitive materials.

The NPT and CTBT solve any risk of nuclear proliferation


and ensure the peaceful use of nuclear energy
CTBTO.org, preparatory commission for the
comprehensive nuclear test ban theory organization, 2010
[7/2010, CTBTO.org, NON-PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
REACHES CONSENSUS, http://www.ctbto.org/press-

centre/highlights/2010/non-proliferation-and-disarmament-conferencereaches-consensus/, 7/19/14, JA]


Lots of applause in the room, huge sense of relief, Rebecca Johnson, a wellknown arms control expert, noted on the afternoon of Friday, 28 May 2010.
After four weeks of intense negotiations, 189 countries agreed on the final
document of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
This is crucial for reinvigorating multilateralism in general and nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament in particular, said Tibor Tth, the Executive
Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty Organization (CTBTO). The agreement on concrete actions will
advance all three pillars of the treaty disarmament, non-proliferation and
peaceful use of nuclear energy, concluded United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon.
CTBT of vital importance
The strong commitment of the Conference to the cessation of all nuclear
explosions and the reaffirmation of the vital importance of the entry into force
of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) are significant pledges.
There can be no strong NPT without a CTBT in force, Tth said. Among other
provisions, the Conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions
adopted by the Conference reaffirmed the vital importance of the entry into
force of the CTBT as a core element of the international nuclear disarmament
and non-proliferation regime. Putting an end to nuclear explosions is [] one
of the longest-standing goals of the United Nations, said Ban on the margins
of the Conference.

Aff Answers

Uniqueness
The Nuclear Renaissance will never happen- lack of
private investments and governmental support- prefer
recent evidence
Edwards, PhD in Mathematics from Queens University,
cofounder and president of the Canadian Coalition for
Nuclear Responsibility, 4/21
[Gordon, 4/21/14, ccnr.org, Nuclear Renaissance on Hold,
http://www.ccnr.org/blog_no_renaissance_2014.pdf, 7/16/14, JA]
The nuclear renaissance was supposed to start in North America with a
dizzying flurry of new orders, then spread to Europe -- and before long other
countries would be buying them and building them like crazy. This has not
happened and will not happen.
In North America the industry is definitely on the decline. A few years ago
new CANDU reactors were going to be built in Canada -- two in Northern
Alberta, one or two in Saskatchewan, a new CANDU (Lepreau-2) in New
Brunswick, plus 2 new ones at Bruce, 2 new ones at Clarington, and 2-4 new
ones at Darlington. All of these new CANDU projects have either been
explicitly cancelled or put on a very distant back burner. Moreover the
refurbishment of Pickering-B is not going ahead, so by 2020 or so the
Pickering Nuclear Station will be a thing of the past. Quebec has phased out
of nuclear power completely and AECL's reactor division has been sold for a
song to a scandal-ridden SNC-Lavalin. The two isotope-producing MAPLE
reactors were non-functional fiascos, and Canada will no longer be producing
medical isotopes from nuclear reactors after 2016. The 57-year-old NRU
reactor at Chalk River will likely be shut down for good. The Advanced
CANDU reactor, ACR, under development for decades, is nowhere to be
seen. Canada's nuclear future looks bleak.
In the USA, since the mid-2007s, there were 16 licence applications to build
24 new nuclear reactors. Most of these have since been cancelled. There has
been no new ground-breaking for a new US nuclear power station since
1974, and until 2013, no ground-breaking for new US reactors at existing
nuclear stations since 1977 -- two years BEFORE the Three Mile Island
accident. Meanwhile 5 older reactors have been permanently retired in the
USA for economic reasons, bringing the number of US reactors down to 99 -and it is expected that up to 13 more older US reactors may be retired in the
next year or so. Gregory Jaczko, the Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at the time of the Fukushima disaster, has said repeatedly that
all US nuclear plants should be shut down for safety reasons.
There are five reactors currently under construction in the USA: the Watts
Bar 2 reactor (ice condenser design) in Tennessee, as well as the VC
Summer in South Carolina, and Vogtle in Georgia (both of the latter are two

AP1000 reactors each). Clearing (not officially defined as "construction") at


the VC Summer and Vogtle sites actually began in 2007. All of these sites
have existing reactors at them. None of these projects could obtain
financing without lavish loan guarantees from the US Government.
In Europe, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland have
nixed nuclear power for future developments. Nuclear prospects in France
are not bright, the Olkiluoto reactor in Finland is still struggling to see the
light of day, and the UK nuclear program is looking more desperate every
year, though the official UK line is to go ahead and build a new fleet of
nukes. Eastern Europe has shown more willingness to build new nukes,
although recently the Czech Republic is showing signs of faltering in its
nuclear plans.
The places where new reactors are much more likely to be built are Russia
and parts of Asia, especially China and South Korea. A South Korean TV crew
was just here last week (leaving for home today from Montreal) to interview
Shawn-Patrick Stensil in Toronto, myself in Montreal, Michel Duguay in
Quebec City, and Chris Rouse (of New Brunswick) in Ottawa, as well as CNSC
people (mainly Dr. Gregory Rzentkowsky) in preparation for a 60-minute
documentary that will be critical of the safety of CANDU reactors that will be
aired in Korea.
We have learned that 70% of Koreans are now against nuclear power.
Hundreds of people, some of them quite highly placed, are already serving
prison terms in Korea for high-profile fraudulent activities in the Korean
nuclear power field that compromise the safety of those reactors.
China is not expanding its nuclear fleet nearly as fast as people thought they
would, and nuclear is only about 3% of their electricity anyway, but they are
definitely building new reactors. Meanwhile, of Japan's 54 operating reactors
on March 1 2011, four have been destroyed and the other 50 are all shut
down. Although the Abe government wants to restart as many reactors as it
can, it appears that only about a dozen will be able to meet the new safety
standards to allow for a restart, assuming it proves politically possible to do
so.
Even before the Fukushima disaster, many independent studies had
concluded that the role of nuclear will continue to be on the decline for the
next 20 years or more no matter how many new reactors are built, because
the old ones will be closing down faster than the new ones can be built.
Financing is a major problem, as no private concerns -- but only national or
regional governments -- seem foolhardy enough to risk investing in new
nuclear reactors.

The Nuclear Renaissance is a myth- no investors:


inefficient, expensive, unsafe
Pepper, columnist for The Stringer specializing in
environmental issues and the nuclear free campaigner for
the Conservation Council of WA, 3/26
[Mia, 3/26/14, The Stringer, The Nuclear Renaissance that Never Was,
http://thestringer.com.au/the-nuclear-renaissance-that-neverwas/#.U8dxSPldX0d, 7/16/14, JA]
The second anniversary of the Fukushima disaster has come and gone. But
here in West Australia, rather than reflection on the lives affected by
Australian uranium sold to and used at the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors,
uranium hopefuls are celebrating the re-election of a pro-uranium
Government at the same time as promoting the low uranium price to
investors as a good time to buy. An advertisement by Energy & Capital finds
an upside in the life-long consequences of one of the worst nuclear
disasters on record. The upside is that uranium prices took a nosedive in
the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, China and India will drive a new
nuclear boom that will rival the first oil discoveries of the late 19th century,
and so theres no better time to invest in uranium than right now. There are
two problems with this. Firstly, it is deeply insensitive to the ongoing suffering
in Japan. Two years after the Fukushima fires, explosions and meltdowns and
160,000 people remain dislocated in temporary accommodation, often
separated from family and friends, and with little hope of a return to
normality for some years to come. Secondly, the presumption of a new
nuclear boom does not withstand scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy
Agency anticipates 1.5 percent annual growth in nuclear power capacity until
2030. Thats not a boom; thats not a nuclear renaissance. Growth in a few
countries, including China and India, will be offset by stagnation and decline
elsewhere. The nuclear industry often promotes figures on the number of new
nuclear reactors that are dangerously skewed, they inflate the number of
proposed reactors and fail to indicate the time and cost blow outs of the
modest amount of reactors that are under construction. Rather than a
renaissance the industry will struggle to maintain status quo. It is not just
those in the nuclear free movement who see a nuclear renaissance as a
mirage. The Economist in 2011 dubbed Nuclear power as the dream that
failed, the Chief of General Electric said Its hard to justify nuclear, really
hard. Former CEO of Excelon, a US company that operate 22 nuclear
reactors, said this; Let me state unequivocally that Ive never met a nuclear
plant I didnt like. It just isnt economic, and its not economic within a
foreseeable time frame. Nuclear power has continually failed to deliver

cheap energy, disappointing its most faithful supporters and has proved the
anti nuclear lobby right time and time again with safety breaches, accidents,
cover ups, secrecy, weapons proliferation and failure to develop waste
storage. Nuclear power promised to be too cheap to meter but in reality it
has become too expensive to matter.

The Nuclear Renaissance is stone cold dead- investment is


low and it still isnt cost competitive
Green, contributor to the Business Spectator, 1/9
[Jim, 1/9/14, The Business Spectator, The Nuclear Renaissance Is Stone Cold
Dead, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/13/nuclearrenaissance-stone-cold-dead, 7/19/14, JA]
The figures are in: 2013 was an annus horribilis for the nuclear power
industry its third in a row and the nuclear renaissance can now be
pronounced stone cold dead.
The most that could be said for the 2013 figures four reactors connected to
grids, four permanently shut down is that they weren't as bad as the
previous year. Nuclear power suffered its biggest ever one-year fall in 2012
nuclear generation fell 7 per cent from the 2011 figure.
Nuclear generation fell in no less than 17 countries, including all of the top
five nuclear-generating countries. Nuclear power accounted for 17 per cent of
global electricity generation in 1993 and it has steadily declined to 10 per
cent now.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has downwardly revised its
projections, and now anticipates nuclear capacity growth of 23 per cent to
100 per cent by 2030. Historically, the IAEA's upper projections have been
fanciful, while its low projections also tend to be too high (by 13 per cent on
average) but provide a reasonable guide nonetheless. So growth of 23 per
cent by 2030 annual growth of a little over 1 per cent is about as much
as the industry can realistically hope for.
The IAEA will further reduce its projections when it factors in last year's annus
horribilis. Perhaps the most striking developments were in the United States,
where the industry is finding it increasingly difficult to profitably operate
existing reactors especially ageing reactors requiring refurbishments let
alone build new ones. Almost half of the world's reactors have operated for
30 years or more, so the problem of ageing reactors is starting to come into
sharp focus.
Peter Bradford, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
notes that by 2009, applications for 31 new reactors in the US were pending.
"The 31 proposed reactors are down to four actually being built and a few
others lingering on in search of a licence, which is good for 20 years,"

Bradford writes. "Those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because
their state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar
remains to be taken from any electric customer's pocket. Operating reactors
are being closed as uneconomic for the first time in 15 years."
Last year alone, US utilities closed or announced plans to close five reactors
in addition to cancelled plans for new reactors and cancelled plans to
increase the power of existing reactors; Forbes recently listed another six
nuclear plants that could be next for the chopping block; and academic Mark
Cooper has identified 38 US reactors in a similar situation to those that have
recently been shut down.
The UK has finally made some movement towards replacing its fleet of ageing
reactors. The capital cost for two planned large reactors (totalling 3.2
gigawatts) at Hinkley Point in Somerset: a staggering $29 billion. Utilities
can't find the capital, so the UK government is offering loan guarantees of
$18 billion. And the UK government is guaranteeing French utility EDF a
staggering 16 cents for every kilowatt-hour generated by the Hinkley Point
reactors, fully indexed for inflation, for a staggering 35 years (EDIS: Britain's
nuclear cost bombshell, October 30).
Economic consulting firm Liberum Capital said: "We are flabbergasted that
the UK government has committed future generations of consumers to the
costs that will flow from this deal" and that Hinkley Point will be "both the
most expensive power station in the world and also the plant with the longest
construction period".
EDF plans to build European Pressurised Reactors, EPRs, at Hinkley Point. Two
other EPR projects in Finland and France have been disastrous. The
estimated capital cost for the EPR in Finland has ballooned from $4.5 billion
to $12 billion. The estimated cost for the EPR in France has ballooned from $5
billion to $12.8 billion. Thus we have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the true
capital costs of nuclear power: double the initial estimate and add a few
billion for good measure.
While the costs of renewables are falling and in the case of solar PV,
plummeting nuclear power is subject to a 'negative learning curve'.
Economic boffins at Citigroup explain: "The capital cost of nuclear build has
actually risen in recent decades in some developed markets, partly due to
increased safety expenditure, and due to smaller construction programs (i.e.
lower economies of scale). Moreover the 'fixed cost' nature of nuclear
generation in combination with its relatively high price (when back end
liabilities are taken into account) also places the technology at a significant
disadvantage; utilities are reluctant to enter into a very long term (20-plus
years of operation, and decades of aftercare provisioning) investment with
almost no control over costs post commissioning, with the uncertainty and
rates of change currently occurring in the energy mix."

The nuclear renaissance will not materialize- the academic


and governmental studies of the pro-nuclear movement
are skewed- nuclear energy cant solve climate change
Bradford, environmental contributor to The Guardian,
2013
[Peter, 7/11/2013, The Guardian, Nuclear renaissance was just a fairy tale,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/11/nuclear-renaissancepower-myth-us, 7/16/14, JA]
Nuclear power requires obedience, not transparency. The gap between
nuclear rhetoric and nuclear reality has been a fundamental impediment to
wise energy policy decisions for half a century now. For various reasons, in
many nations the nuclear industry cannot tell the truth about its progress, its
promise or its perils. Its backers in government and in academia do no better.
Rhetorical excess from opponents of nuclear power contributes to the fog, but
proponents have by far the heavier artillery. In the US, during the rise and fall
of the bubble formerly known as "the nuclear renaissance", many of the
proponents' tools have been on full display. Academic and governmental
studies a decade ago understated the likely cost of new reactors and
overstated their potential contribution to fighting climate change. By 2006, a
few US state legislatures had been enticed to expose utility customers to all
the risks of building new reactors. Industry-sponsored conferences persuaded
businesses and newspapers of an imminent jobs bonanza, ignoring job losses
resulting from high electric rates and passing up cheaper, more labourintensive alternatives. These local groups added to the pressure on Congress
for more subsidies. France and Japan were held out as examples of countries
that had avoided the timidity and overregulation that had stalled nuclear
construction in the US. Indeed, it was argued, these nations had even solved
the waste problem through their commitment to reprocessing spent fuel. At
times inconsistent tales were told simultaneously. Thus the US Congress was
told that the new licensing process and the new generic designs were so
untried and environmental opposition so formidable that loan guarantees
were needed to lay the risks off on taxpayers. At the same time, Wall Street
and state legislatures were assured that these new features had
chloroformed public opposition and otherwise laid to rest the terrifying
industry ghosts embodied by the nine-figure dollar losses at Shoreham,
Seabrook, WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System), and Midland,
sites that resonate in US nuclear folklore like civil war battlefield names. The
renaissance story line was hard to resist. By early 2009, applications for 31
new reactors were pending at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
promises came garnished with tales of remorseful changes of heart from oftobscure nuclear converts. With few exceptions, the news media especially

television, with its thirst for the short and the simple fell for the rhetoric. It
is all in ruins now. The 31 proposed reactors are down to four actually being
built and a few others lingering on in search of a licence, which is good for 20
years. Those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because their state
legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains to be
taken from any electric customer's pocket. Operating reactors are being
closed as uneconomic for the first time in 15 years. Still the band plays on.
President Obama recently touted new reactors as part of his "all of the
above" policy on energy. But is "all of the above" really a policy? Do we build
palaces to avert housing shortages? Don't we instead prioritise, based on the
best information available? US secretaries of energy enthuse that the four
new reactors will be completed "on time and on budget", never mind that
they are already behind and over and that "on budget" will mean "well above
the cost of creating equivalent low carbon energy more sensibly". As always
in the face of failure, the industry puts forth new designs as a basis for new
promises, now touting small modular reactors with the same fervour with
which it touted large, partially modular reactors a decade ago. Congress finds
a few hundred million to preserve these dreams even as its cutbacks shatter
so many others. A new movie, Pandora's Promise (no film-maker familiar with
nuclear history would include "promise" in a title intended to be pronuclear),
recently screened at Sundance.Featuring the same old converts and straw
men, it opened in cinemas a few weeks ago to tiny audiences and generally
unenthusiastic reviews, especially from reviewers knowledgeable about
nuclear power. In the astonishing persistence of the global appetite for false
nuclear promises lies the critical importance of the World Nuclear Industry
Status Report, published on Thursday. It sets forth in painstaking detail the
actual experience and achievements of nuclear energy around the world. It is
based for the most part on generally accepted data distinctively graphed for
clearer understanding. Where the authors introduce judgment, they explain
what they have done and why. The report has a track record stretching back
years. It is much better than the embarrassing exuberances of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association or the
pronouncements of most national governments. Most of the myths on which
the purported nuclear renaissance rested founder on the rocks of the
information presented here. Is new nuclear power cheaper than alternative
ways of meeting energy needs? Of course not. What about low-carbon
"baseload" alternatives? See page 71 of the report. Can a country grow its
economy by building nuclear reactors? What don't you understand about the
employment consequences of imposing rate shock on industrial and
commercial customers? Are the consequences of the Fukushima meltdowns
really being overstated by antinuclear activists? Maybe, but see the chapter
on the status of Fukushima. In short, the nuclear renaissance whatever it
may be called throughout the world - has always consisted entirely of the
number of reactors whose excess costs governments were prepared to make
mandatory for either customers or taxpayers. Investor capital cannot be
conscripted. Investors of the sort that nuclear power must attract study risks

carefully. They know the information in this report, and so should everyone
else with responsibility for energy decisions that allocate nuclear risk.

Nuclear renaissance is dead- lack of international support


and natural gas boom gut the movement
Kloor, professor of environmental journalism @ NYU, 13
[Keith, 01/14/2013, Slate Magazine, The Pro-Nukes Environmental
Movement,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/nuc
lear_energy_and_climate_change_environmentalists_debate_how_to_stop_glo
bal.html, 07/18/2014, PD]
And this was before the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi power plant meltdown in
Japan. Since then, safety concerns have prompted some countries to
abandon nuclear energy plans; Germany is phasing out nuclear power
altogether. (Perversely, this has resulted in more greenhouse-gas-emitting
coal being burned.) Not that long ago, the industry was poised for a big
rebound, but the future suddenly looks grim. Perhaps that is what led the
Economist last year to largely write off nuclear energy as a lost causeor at
least not a viable substitute for fossil fuels.
Another factor stalling the so-called nuclear renaissance is cheap natural
gas, courtesy of the shale boom. As the New York Times reported last year,
the sudden glut and the rapid switch from coal to gas by many utilities calls
into question talk of a nuclear revival in the United States.

Nuclear renaissance is dead- poor projections and lack of


economic viability
Green, coordinator of Beyond Nuclear Initiative, 12/25
[Jim, The Ecologist, 12/25/2013, The nuclear renaissance is stone cold
dead,
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2211231/the_nuclear_renais
sance_is_stone_cold_dead.html, 07/18/2014, PD]
This year has been the nuclear power industry's annus horribilis and the
nuclear renaissance can now be pronounced stone cold dead. Nuclear power
suffered its biggest ever one-year fall in 2012 - nuclear generation fell 7%
from the 2011 figure. Nuclear generation fell in no less than 17 countries,
including all of the top five nuclear-generating countries. Nuclear power
accounted for 17% of global electricity generation in 1993 and it has steadily
declined to 10% now. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has
downwardly revised its nuclear power projections, and now anticipates
growth of 23% to 100% percent by 2030. Historically, the IAEA's upper
projections have been fanciful, and its lower projections are usually much
closer to the mark. So annual growth of a little over 1% is about as much as
the industry can realistically hope for. And the IAEA will further reduce its

projections when it factors in this year's annus horribilis. In the US, even
existing reactors are money sinks Perhaps the most shocking developments
have been in the United States, where the industry is finding it increasingly
difficult to profitably operate existing reactors - especially ageing reactors
requiring refurbishments - let alone build new ones. Almost half of the world's
reactors have operated for 30 years or more, so the problem of ageing
reactors will increasingly come into focus in coming years. Peter Bradford, a
former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, notes that by
2009, applications for 31 new reactors in the US were pending. "The 31
proposed reactors are down to four actually being built and a few others
lingering on in search of a licence, which is good for 20 years", Bradford
writes. "Those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because their
state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains
to be taken from any electric customer's pocket. Operating reactors are being
closed as uneconomic for the first time in 15 years."

Nuclear energy renaissance is a farce- was media hype


Bradford, professor @ Vermont Law School specializing in nuclear public
policy, 13
[Peter A, Green Political Foundation, July 11th 2013, Introduction:World
Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20130716mscworldnuclearreport2013-hr-v4.pdf, 07/18/2014, PD]
Nuclear power requires obedience, not transparency. The gap between
nuclear rhetoric and nuclear reality has been a fundamental impediment to
wise energy policy decisions for half a century now. For various reasons in
many nations, the nuclear industry cannot tell the truth about its progress, its
promise or its perils. Its backers in government and in academia do no better.
Rhetorical excess from opponents of nuclear power contributes to the fog, but
proponents have by far the heavier artillery. During the rise and fall of the
bubble formerly known as the nuclear renaissance in the U.S. many of their
tools have been on full display. Academic and governmental studies a decade
ago understated the likely cost of new reactors and overstated their potential
contribution to fighting climate change. By 2006 a few U.S. state legislatures
had been enticed to expose utility customers to all the risks of building new
reactors. Industry-sponsored conferences persuaded businesses and
newspapers of an imminent jobs bonanza, ignoring job losses resulting from
high electric rates and passing up cheaper, more labor intensive alternatives.
These local groups added to the pressure on Congress for more subsidies.
France and Japan were held out as examples of countries that had avoided
the timidity and overregulation that had stalled nuclear construction in the
U.S. Indeed, it was argued, these nations had even solved the waste problem
through their commitment to reprocessing spent fuel. At times inconsistent
tales were told simultaneously. Thus the U.S. Congress was told that the new
licensing process and the new generic designs were so untried and
environmental opposition so formidable that loan guarantees were needed to

lay the risks off on taxpayers. At the same time Wall Street and state
legislatures were assured that these new features had chloroformed public
opposition and otherwise laid to rest the terrifying industry ghosts embodied
by the nine figure dollar losses at Shoreham, Seabrook, WPPSS, and Midland,
sites that resonate in U.S. nuclear folklore like Civil War battlefield names.
The renaissance story line was hard to resist. By early 2009, applications for
31 new reactors were pending at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The promises came garnished with tales of remorseful changes of heart from
oft-obscure nuclear converts. With few exceptions, the news media especially television with its thirst for the short and the simple - fell for the
renaissance story line.

Not Solve Warming


Even if the Nuclear Renaissance was coming now, it would
never be cost competitive and wouldnt solve warming
Hackenos, contributor to Aljazeera America specializing in
energy policy and the European Union, 6/16
[Paul, 6/16/14, Aljazeera America, The West Doesnt Need Nuclear for Energy
Independence, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/nuclearenergy-independenceeurope.html
Some of the most confounding problems of our day global warming and
the Wests energy dependence on Russia and the Middle East appear to
President Barack Obama and some of Europes leaders to have an obvious
answer: more nuclear power. A May 2014 EU Commission study on Europes
energy security after the Ukraine crisis insists its going to be a big part of the
solution. Nuclear is also a central component of Obamas all of the above
energy strategy. After all, nuclear power plants are supposedly inexpensive to
run, emit no CO2 and could lessen dependence on oil and gas imports from
volatile regions of the world. A no-brainer, right? Not by a long shot. Nuclear
power is a nasty red herring that advocates will pay for dearly, should it
figure into their response to the current challenges on the table. In the past,
critics of nuclear power went to great lengths to point out nuclear energys
inherent danger. Consider the meltdowns at Three Mile Island in 1979,
Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, they said, on top of the untold
number of smaller mishaps that never make the headlines. And then theres
the unsolvable dilemma of radioactive nuclear waste, which nobody wants
anywhere near their backyards. In Europe these two strands of argument
were enough to convince Danes, Italians, Austrians, the Irish and the
Portuguese, among others, never to gamble with nuclear. Germany,
Switzerland and Spain caught on later and are in the process of exiting
nuclear power now. But these days the safety arguments pack less punch.
Not because theyre any less valid but because the costs and financial risks of
building new plants are so clearly prohibitive that nuclear power doesnt
make sense even if the safety risks were zero. In a nutshell: New nuclear
power doesnt pay. In fact, its dramatically more expensive than the newest
generations of renewables (in particular, wind and solar). Its the huge initial
investment, the inevitable construction delays and cost overruns and poor
long-term market prospects that make nuclear power such a bad deal today
and why private-sector utility companies are so hesitant to invest in new
nuclear. In order to finance new reactors, countries such as the United
Kingdom and Finland have called for enormous government subsidies; while
this is not new (nuclear power has long been subsidized), the amounts in
question today far exceed those of decades past. There are no better
examples to underscore nuclears dismal prospects than in Europe. Take the
U.K., where the government had to backtrack on its pledge never to subsidize
nuclear power. The estimated construction cost of the two planned reactors

at the Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset is a mind-boggling $27 billion, which


will make it the most expensive power station ever built. Once in operation,
the reactors should provide about 7 percent of Britains electricity which
sounds enticing. But in order to make this gigantic investment attractive, the
British government had to guarantee the investors, the French state-owned
EDF Energy Group and two Chinese state firms, a minimum per-kilowatt price
for its electricity production for 35 years. The price finally settled on was
almost twice the current wholesale market price for electricity. The outcry in
the UK was deafening. Paul Dorfman of the Energy Institute at University
College London underlined who would be paying these subsidies. The fixed
feed-in tariff, he said is essentially a subsidy of between what we calculate
to be 800m to 1bn [$1.3 billion to 1.7 billion] a year that the U.K. taxpayer
and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and
French corporations, which are essentially their governments. Nuclear
power, once the cutting edge of technological progress, is now a dinosaur, all
the more anachronistic when one looks at the price of renewables. Even
conservative financial analysts, such as those at the London stockbrokerage
Liberum Capital, say the deal is foolhardy. In the aftermath of the transaction
last year, it told The Guardian, We are flabbergasted that the U.K.
government has committed future generations of consumers to the costs that
will flow from this deal The U.K. government is taking a massive bet that
fossil fuel prices will be extremely high in the future. If that bet proves to be
wrong, then this contract will look economically insane. Another white
elephant is in Finland, where the latest-generation European pressurized
water reactor (EPR) was supposed to be the poster boy for nuclear energys
comeback on the continent. Begun in 2005, the Olkiluoto 3 plant was the first
new reactor to begin construction in Europe since 2000. Today it is four years
behind schedule and still has no estimated start date. Its projected cost has
tripled, to over $11 billion. No one regrets the Olkiluoto 3 fiasco more than its
French investor, Areva, whose 2013 losses on the plant were $553 million. At
least this was less than in 2012, when the companys losses and insurance
indemnity due to delays and cost overruns tallied $910 billion. Another EPR is
under construction in France, along the coast of Normandy, where its not
faring any better, beset by multiyear delays, billion-dollar cost overruns,
financial mismanagement and worker deaths. No wonder President Franois
Hollande is rethinking Frances nuclear power program. Nuclear power, once
the cutting edge of technological progress, is now a dinosaur, all the more
anachronistic when one looks at the price of renewables, whose costs have
plummeted over a decade and will, say experts, continue to decline as
technology improves. The wunderkinder are solar photovoltaic, wind power
and bioenergy. Solar and onshore wind prices are now at or quickly
approaching market parity in many large electricity markets around the
world. In other words, the cheapest renewables are now cost competitive with
fossil fuels and nuclear, even without subsidies. This has been the case for
some time now in regions with high electricity costs and abundant wind or
sunshine.

Renewables can solve warming- nuclear energy is too


contentious
Wasserman, professor of history @ the Open U. and
environmental activist, 04/17
[Harvey, 04/17/2014, EcoWatch, IPCC: Renewables, Not Nuclear Power, Can
Solve Climate Crisis, http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/17/ipcc-renewables-notnuclear-solve-climate/, 07/18/2014, PD]
The authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has left
zero doubt that we humans are wrecking our climate. It also effectively says
the problem can be solved, and that renewable energy is the way to do it,
and that nuclear power is not. The United Nations IPCC is the worlds most
respected authority on climate. This IPCC report was four years in the
making. It embraces several hundred climate scientists and more than a
thousand computerized scenarios of what might be happening to global
weather patterns. The panels work has definitively discredited the corporate
contention that human-made carbon emissions are not affecting climate
change. To avoid total catastrophe, says the IPCC, we must reduce the
industrial spew of global warming gasses by 40-70 percent of 2010 levels.
Though the warning is dire, the report offers three pieces of good news. First,
we have about 15 years to slash these emissions. Second, renewable
technologies are available to do the job. And third, the cost is manageable.
Though 2030 might seem a tight deadline for a definitive transition to
Solartopia, green power technologies have become far simpler and quicker to
install than their competitors, especially atomic reactors. They are also far
cheaper, and we have the capital to do it. The fossil fuel industry has long
scorned the idea that its emissions are disrupting our Earths weather. The oil
companies and atomic reactor backers have dismissed the ability of
renewables to provide humankinds energy needs. But the IPCC confirms that
green technologies, including efficiency and conservation, can in fact handle
the jobat a manageable price. It doesnt cost the world to save the
planet, says Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist who led the IPCC
team. The IPCC report cites nuclear power as a possible means of lowering
industrial carbon emissions. But it also underscores considerable barriers
involving finance and public opposition. Joined with widespread concerns
about ecological impacts, length of implementation, production uncertainties
and unsolved waste issues, the reports positive emphasis on renewables
virtually guarantees nuclears irrelevance. Some climate scientists have
recently advocated atomic energy as a solution to global warming. But their
most prominent spokesman, Dr. James Hansen, also expresses serious doubts
about the current generation of reactors, including Fukushima, which he calls
that old technology. Instead Hansen advocates a new generation of
reactors. But the designs are untested, with implementation schedules
stretching out for decades. Financing is a major obstacle as is waste disposal

and widespread public opposition, now certain to escalate with the IPCCs
confirmation that renewables can provide the power so much cheaper and
faster. With its 15-year deadline for massive carbon reductions, the IPCC has
effectively timed out any chance a new generation of reactors could help.
And with its clear endorsement of green power as a tangible, doable,
affordable solution for the climate crisis, the pro-nuke case has clearly
suffered a multiple meltdown.

Nuclear power solves proliferation and warming- only way


to solve baseload power
Biello, editor of Energy and Environment @ Scientific
American, 12/23
[David, 12/23/2014, Scientific American, How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global
Warming, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-canstop-global-warming/, 07/18/2014, PD]
When the Atlantic Navigator docked in Baltimore harbor earlier this month,
the freighter carried the last remnants of some of the nuclear weapons that
the Soviet Union had brandished in the cold war. During the past 20 years
more than 19,000 Russian warheads have been dismantled and processed to
make fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors. In fact, during that period more than half
the uranium fuel that powered the more than 100 reactors in the U.S. came
from such reprocessed nuclear weapons. In addition to reducing the risk of
nuclear war, U.S. reactors have also been staving off another global
challenge: climate change. The low-carbon electricity produced by such
reactors provides 20 percent of the nation's power and, by the estimates of
climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, avoided 64 billion
metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also avoided spewing soot and
other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved some
1.8 million lives. And that's why Hansen, among others, such as former
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, thinks that nuclear power is a key energy
technology to fend off catastrophic climate change. "We can't burn all these
fossil fuels," Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as
long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be
burned. "Coal is almost half the [global] emissions. If you replace these power
plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors you could do a lot of [pollution
reduction] quickly." Indeed, he has evidence: the speediest drop in
greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and 80s,
when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for
electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year.
The world needs to drop its global warming pollution by 6 percent annually to
avoid "dangerous" climate change in the estimation of Hansen and his coauthors in a recent paper in PLoS One. "On a global scale, it's hard to see how
we could conceivably accomplish this without nuclear," added economist and
co-author Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University,

where Hansen works. The only problem: the world is not building so many
nuclear reactors.

Nuclear Energy is lowering carbon emissions and limiting


the effects of warming
Biello, contributor to the Scientific American focusing on
Energy and Security, 13
[Dave, 12/12/13, Scientific American, How Nuclear Power can Stop Global
Warming, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-canstop-global-warming/, 7/18/14, JA]
When the Atlantic Navigator docked in Baltimore harbor earlier this month,
the freighter carried the last remnants of some of the nuclear weapons that
the Soviet Union had brandished in the cold war. During the past 20 years
more than 19,000 Russian warheads have been dismantled and processed to
make fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors. In fact, during that period more than half
the uranium fuel that powered the more than 100 reactors in the U.S. came
from such reprocessed nuclear weapons. In addition to reducing the risk of
nuclear war, U.S. reactors have also been staving off another global
challenge: climate change. The low-carbon electricity produced by such
reactors provides 20 percent of the nation's power and, by the estimates of
climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, avoided 64 billion
metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also avoided spewing soot and
other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved some

1.8 million lives. And that's why Hansen, among others, such as former
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, thinks that nuclear power is a key energy
technology to fend off catastrophic climate change. "We can't burn all these
fossil fuels," Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as
long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be
burned. "Coal is almost half the [global] emissions. If you replace these power
plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors you could do a lot of [pollution
reduction] quickly." Indeed, he has evidence: the speediest drop in
greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and 80s,
when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for
electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year.
The world needs to drop its global warming pollution by 6 percent annually to
avoid "dangerous" climate change in the estimation of Hansen and his coauthors in a recent paper in PLoS One. "On a global scale, it's hard to see how
we could conceivably accomplish this without nuclear," added economist and
co-author Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University,
where Hansen works.

No Link
The link is empirically disproven- renewable energy and
energy can co-exist- no trade offs
Monbiot, published author and contributor to The
Guardian, 2011
[George, 5/27/11, The Guardian, Why must UK have to choose between
nuclear and renewable energy?,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/27/whychoose-nuclear-renewable-energy, 7/18/14, JA]
I know that others don't share my puzzlement, but I don't understand why the
nuclear question needs to divide the environment movement. Our underlying
aim is the same: we all want to reduce human impacts on the biosphere. We
all agree that our consumption of resources must be reduced, as sharply as
possible. We all question the model of endless economic growth. Almost
everyone in this movement also recognises that even with the maximum
possible conservation of resources and efficiency in the way they are used
we will not be able to bring our consumption down to zero. This is especially
the case with electricity. Those who have been following the issue closely
know that even with massive reductions in energy demand, electricity use
will have to rise in order to remove fossil fuels from both transport and
heating. The idea, on which there's also wide agreement within the
movement, is that the petrol and diesel used to power cars, buses and trains,
and the gas and oil used to heat our houses, should be partly or mostly
replaced by low-carbon electricity. That means an increase in electricity
supply, even as, with sweeping efficiency measures in all sectors, our total
energy consumption falls. So the only question that divides us is how this
low-carbon electricity should be produced. I don't much care about which
technology is used, as long as the other impacts are as small as possible, and
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced quickly and efficiently. None of our
options is easy and painless. Windfarms are running into massive public
opposition, not least because of the new power lines required to connect
them to the grid. The costs of other kinds of renewables are high, and their
potential to supply much of our electricity is low. The capture and storage of
the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels has yet to be
demonstrated at the scale required to show that it's a viable option. It is also
expensive, and still involves mining coal and drilling for gas. That means
continued environmental impacts, which are likely to escalate as shale gas is
extracted and coal is increasingly mined through open casting. Nuclear
power remains an object of deep public suspicion. The advantage it has over
renewables is that production takes place on a compact site, rather than
being spread over the countryside, and that new power lines are not required
in places where they haven't been built before. The disadvantage it shares
with coal and gas is that it depends upon the extraction of uranium, which,
like mining fossil fuels, imposes a high environmental cost. In principle this

could be overcome by moving to fourth-generation nuclear technologies. Not


only do they not require fresh supplies of uranium, but some of the proposed
technologies consume existing nuclear waste. None of them has yet been
demonstrated at scale, however. The large-scale deployment of any of these
three options renewables, carbon capture and storage or nuclear will take
between 10 and 20 years. These are hard physical and political constraints.
There is no point in tearing each other apart over issues we can do little
about. We can agree to disagree over what the mix should be, and we can
keep debating all the issues it involves, hopefully in a friendly manner. The
likely scenario is that, because of the problems faced by all three
technologies, we'll probably need some of each. But is this possible?
According to Jonathon Porritt, it isn't. In a recent blog post discussing
renewables and nuclear power, he asserts that: "It's becoming clearer and
clearer that we're now into a strict fight in terms of those two options. The
days when people talked about "co-existence" are long gone; this is now
either/or, not both/and." That statement would require an explanation at any
time, and unfortunately Porritt doesn't provide one. But coming just after the
Committee on Climate Change published its renewable energy review, it
needs even more unpacking. The committee is the body that recommends
the government's carbon targets, and offers advice on how they might best
be met. Of all the agencies involved in these questions, it has the most
influence over government policy, as we saw during the bust-up within the
cabinet this month over whether or not its target should be adopted (the
committee won after David Cameron intervened). What the committee
recommends is what is most likely to happen. It advises that: "The optimal
policy is to pursue a portfolio approach, with each of the different
technologies playing a role." It suggests the following, illustrative scenario for
decarbonising electricity by 2030: 40% renewables 40% nuclear 15%
carbon capture and storage Up to 10% gas without carbon capture and
storage It raised no difficulties about co-existence between nuclear and
renewables. And why should there be? Why can't nuclear provide the
baseload power, and renewables and carbon capture and storage most of the
rest? Why can't it be both/and, rather than either/or?

Environment Turn
Nuclear energy compounds fossil fuel usage, releases
CFCs, causes warming, and is biologically hazardous
Caldicott, president of Nuclear Policy Research Institute,
06
(Helen, Melbourne University Press 2006, Nuclear Power is not the Answer,
http://tria.fcampalans.cat/images/Nuclear%20Power%20is%20not%20the
%20answer%20-%20H.%20Caldicott.pdf
The current administration clearly believes that if it lies frequently and with
conviction, the general public will be lulled into believing their oft-repeated
dictums. As this book will show, no part of efficiently, safely, and with no
discharge of greenhouse gases or emissions is true. Nuclear energy creates
significant greenhouse gases and pollution today, and is on a trajectory to
produce as much as conventional sources of energy within the next one or
two decades. It requires massive infusions of government (read taxpayer)
subsidies, relying on universities and the weapons industry for its research
and development, and being considered far too risky for private investors. It
is also doubtful that the 8,358 individuals diagnosed between 1986 and 2001
with thyroid cancer in Belarus, downwind of Chernobyl, would choose the
adjective safe to describe nuclear power. Nuclear power is not clean and
green, as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil
fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear
power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to
transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear
process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon
dioxide (CO2)the primary greenhouse gasinto the atmosphere. In
addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are
emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to
20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper (greenhouse
gas) than CO2, but it is a classic pollutant and a potent destroyer of the
ozone layer. While currently the creation of nuclear electricity produces only
one-third the amount of CO2 emitted from a similar-sized, conventional gas
generator, this is a transitory statistic. Over several decades, as the
concentration of available uranium ore declines, more fossil fuels will be
required to extract the ore from less concentrated ore veins. Within ten to
twenty years, nuclear reactors will produce no net energy because of the
massive amounts of fossil fuel that will be necessary to mine and to enrich
the remaining poor grades of uranium. (The nuclear power industry contends
that large quantities of uranium can be obtained by reprocessing radioactive
spent fuel. However, this process is extremely expensive, medically
dangerous for nuclear workers, and releases large amounts of radioactive
material into the air and water; it is therefore not a pragmatic consideration.)
By extension, the operation of nuclear power plants will then produce exactly

the same amounts of greenhouse gases and air pollution as standard power
plants.

Prolif Turn
Nuclear renaissances increased uranium dependence
causes proliferation
Paine, senior policy advisor @ nuclear program @ NRDC,
10
[Christopher E., 03/01/2010, University of Richmond Law Review, The
Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Global Security, And Climate Change: Weighing The Costs
And Benefits Of Nuclear Power Expansion,
http://lawreview.richmond.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ChristopherPaine-Weighing-Costs-of-Nuclear-Fuel.pdf, 07/18/2014, PD]
For many developing countries, significant dependence on nuclear power
would merely exchange one form of foreign fuel dependence for another.
Most nuclear countries, including the United States, lack sufficient highquality uranium resources to satisfy their nuclear fuel demand
domestically.1" Uranium concentrate, and in most cases enriched and
fabricated fuel, must be imported. However, as we have seen, the
understandable desire to achieve energy independence, when pursued in the
nuclear realm, can have destabilizing consequences. Whether or not the
declared energy security motive is genuine, it can lead to a country's
clandestine acquisition or indigenous development of its own autonomous
sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and these can be used to produce the
materials needed for nuclear weapons. J. Nuclear Facilities Can Be Magnets
for Attack Nuclear reactors and their associated spent fuel pools and fuel
cycle facilities can become targets in wartime, as we have seen repeatedly in
the Middle East: Israel attacked Iraq's research reactor in 1981;*" Iraq
attacked Iran's partially completed Bushehr reactors during the Iran-Iraq War
in the 1980s;*10 Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel's Dimona military
production reactor during the first Gulf War;"1 and in September 2007 Israel
launched a successful aerial attack on what it reportedly believed to be a
North Korean supplied nuclear facility in eastern Syria.11* President Bush
worried publicly in October 2007 about the possibility that the threat of an
Iranian attack on nuclear-armed Israel could trigger "World War III,"
suggesting we might be wise to avert this possibility by "preventing [the
Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear
weapon."313

Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is keyproliferation and health issues


Goldschmidt, visiting scholar @ Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 08
[Pierre, Carnegie Endowment, 2/19/2008-2/21/2008, Nuclear Renaissance
and Non-Proliferation,

http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/External_Reports/nuclearsocie
ties_2-19-081.pdf, 07/18/2014, PD]
What is of concern is that some of the States that have recently indicated
interest in acquiring NPPs seem to be motivated by geo-political
considerations as much as by economic or environmental factors. It is also
worrisome to see some supplier states racing to offer their services to
countries where starting now an electro-nuclear program does not appear to
be the best or a priority option. International organizations such as the IAEA
can certainly help in laying out objective, well studied criteria to judge when
and where nuclear energy makes sense or not. In the short term, in order to
compensate for the lack of adequate industrial infrastructure and nuclear
safety culture in some recipient States, suppliers may offer BOT contracts,
whereby they would build, operate and later transfer the NPP to the buyer.
That might work initially in few cases, but is it sustainable in the longer term?
Are we really going to see Russian, French, American or Chinese experts
assuming the responsibility of operating NPPs in Libya, Jordan, the UAE and
other States? We should always keep in mind that a severe nuclear accident
anywhere in the world will have damaging consequences for the whole
industry even in those countries where NPPs are operated in the safest way.
THE NON-PROLIFERATION CHALLENGE Today I will not dwell further on these
important safety aspects, but wish to focus on some of the non-proliferation
challenges inevitably associated with a worldwide expansion of the peaceful
use of nuclear energy. I believe that the IAEA is in a position to provide
adequate assurances that there is no diversion of nuclear material from NPPs
and no undeclared nuclear material and activities in any country that does
not have sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities and has a Comprehensive
Safeguards Agreement (CSA) and a Additional Protocol (AP) in force with the
Agency2 . In contrast, the Agencys ability to provide the necessary
assurances in a country that operates sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities
and has not ratified the AP is limited. It is even lower if such a country has
been found to be in breach of its obligation to comply with its safeguards
agreement, or is uncooperative in resolving any question or inconsistency, or
refuses (or delays) access to locations (e.g. to take environmental swipes)
requested by the Agency or rejects (or delays) the installation of surveillance
and containment equipments including remote monitoring. In order to
address these concerns and minimize the risks, we must both discourage the
spread of sensitive fuel cycle facilities and strengthen the IAEA verification
authority, in particular when a State has been found to be in non-compliance
with its safeguards agreement.

***Hafnium DA

Hafnium DA Nuclear Expansion

1NC
Hafnium demand is low now prices are down
Vulcan, researcher and contributor to
HardAssetsInvestor.com, 11 (Tom, 2-28, Hafnium: Small Supply, Big
Applications, http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/features/2572-hafniumsmall-supply-big-applications.html?showall=&fullart=1&start=5, 7-16-14,
Tang)
The price of hafnium is interesting on two counts. First, historically, the price
of the metal has remained very steady over quite long periodsfrom 1970 to
2000 there was extraordinarily little volatility in it price. Second, it appears to
be so cheap!
Currently, hafnium with 0.2-0.5 percent zirconium content sells for around
$1,200-1,300 per kilogram. On occasion, hafnium with an even lower
zirconium content (<0.1 percent) is produced and sold at an even higher
premium. The metal with 0.5-1.0 percent zirconium content sells for $800900 per kilo, while that with 1-3 percent zirconium content sells for $500-700
per kilo.
However, with only around 70 tonnes of the metal being produced each year,
compared to, say, only about 50 tonnes of rhenium produced each year, one
wonders: Why does hafnium fetch so much less than rhenium, which
currently sells for $4,000-5,000 per kilo?

Nuclear expansion raises hafnium prices and creates


supply bottlenecks independently takes out solvency
Abbott, professor in the School of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering at the University of Adelaide, Australia, 13
(Derek, Physicist and Electronic Engineer with a focus on energy-technology
and global energy demand, 5-30, Limits to growth: Can nuclear power
supply the worlds needs? http://thebulletin.org/2012/september/limitsgrowth-can-nuclear-power-supply-world%E2%80%99s-needs)
Could nuclear power be rapidly expanded on a global scale? There are a
number of practical limiting factors, including site availability and
acceptability, nuclear waste disposal issues, and the risks of accidents and
proliferation. But there are also a variety of resource limitations. One
particular resource limitation that has not been clearly articulated in the
nuclear debate thus far is the availability of the relatively scarce metals used
in the construction of the reactor vessel and core. While this scarcity is not of
immediate concern, it would present a hard limit to the ultimate expansion of
nuclear power. This limit appears to be a harder one than the supply of
uranium fuel. An increased demand for rare metalssuch as hafnium,
beryllium, zirconium, and niobium, for examplewould also increase their

price volatility and limit their rate of uptake in nuclear power stations. Metals
used in the nuclear vessel eventually become radioactive and, on
decommissioning, those with long half-lives cannot be recycled on timescales
useful to human civilization. Thus, a large-scale expansion of nuclear power
would reduce elemental diversity by depleting the worlds supply of some
elements and making them unavailable to future generations.

Increased expenses will incentivize companies to cut


corners and compromise safety that risks meltdowns
Luleva, researcher for the green optimist, 13 (Mila, 9-30,
Small Commercial Nuclear Reactors Compromise On Safety, Report States,
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/09/30/small-nuclear-reactorssafety/#.U8moBvldXKE, 7-16-14, Tang)
A new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), entitled Small Isnt
Always Beautiful, points out that these small reactors will not be able to
produce cheaper electricity, while maintaining the necessary safety. Small
nuclear reactors became quite popular in 2011-2012, as Fukushima disaster
occurred, and at the same time gas prices dropped. This caused many people
to lose trust in nuclear power, and vendors began to explore different options.
Edwin Lyman, the author of the report, concluded that a small reactor might
be cheaper to build, however the final product would be much more prone to
serious accidents and a subject to terrorist attacks. And yet, some utilities, in
their search for a cheaper alternative or a fast solution to an energy
deficiency problem, are inclined to invest in smaller projects.This report is not
the first to point out the hidden dangers that small reactors pose. The
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) produced another
document last month, stating that these small reactors will require huge
subsidies and numerous orders, so that the manufacturers can make profit.
Many vendors compromise on reactors safety. At the same time, they are
demanding lowering of the requirements set by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission on emergency planning, control room staffing and security force
staffing. According to Lyman, such negotiations are done behind close doors,
with the excuse that proprietary information has to be protected. The author
also finds the reasoning of vendors that small reactors will cut costs,
unjustified. Reduced costs ultimately means more defects in the modular
construction, he states. It might be possible for the manufacturers to really
produce a small reactor that costs less and meet all safety requirements,
however the industry is not there yet. It will require a lot more time, a lot
more taxpayers money and much larger involvement of the DOE and the
Congress. Lyman states that the disaster in Fukushima should not be used as
a reason for the industry to promote smaller reactors as safer because they
require lower emergency planning zones. On the contrary, instead of NRC
weakening safeguards to accommodate the new reactors, they should
instead put safety issues first.

Meltdowns cause extinction


Lendman, Research Associate of the Centre for Research
on Globalization, 11 (Stephen, 3-13, Nuclear Meltdown in Japan,
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclearmeltdown-in-japan, 7-16-14, Tang)
Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $100 billion in damage, up to then
the most costly ever natural disaster. This time, from quake and tsunami
damage alone, that figure will be dwarfed. Moreover, under a worst case core
meltdown, all bets are off as the entire region and beyond will be threatened
with permanent contamination, making the most affected areas unsafe to live
in. On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued a "Red Alert: Nuclear
Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying: Fukushima Daiichi
"nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor
meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event
"does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have
happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to
Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to
contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted
fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility
built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within
specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed
nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their
book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the
Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko
said: "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater
than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this
one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can
be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination.
One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the
entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor
cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its)
containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before,"
at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from being merely
dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the
quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially,
millions of lives will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said Fukushima's
reactor container wasn't breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making
the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No. 1 facility
could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors
are affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very
serious. The possibility of an extreme catastrophe can't be discounted.
Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst John Large told Al Jazeera that

by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the outer dome, a
reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion. "When I look at the size
of the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large
leak (because) fuel continues to generate heat." Already, Fukushima way
exceeds Three Mile Island that experienced a partial core meltdown in Unit 2.
Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial concealed full
details until much later. According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman,
Japan's quake fallout may cause nuclear disaster, saying: "This is a very
serious situation. If the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more
plants), the super-heated radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could
conceivably have an explosion," that, in fact, occurred. As a result, massive
radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire region. "It could be,
literally, an apocalyptic event.

UQ demand low
Hafnium market is low now production capabilities are
limited
Vulcan, researcher and contributor to
HardAssetsInvestor.com, 11 (Tom, 2-28, Hafnium: Small Supply, Big
Applications, http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/features/2572-hafniumsmall-supply-big-applications.html?showall=&fullart=1&start=5, 7-16-14,
Tang)
The market for hafnium, a metal crucial to both the aerospace and nuclear
energy industries, may remain a relatively tiny one for now. But look for it to
grow much bigger in the global infrastructure build-out to come.
With an average crustal abundance of 3 ppm (parts per million), hafniuma
shiny, silver-gray metal often used in alloys and nuclear sciencecertainly
isn't rare. The metal is more abundant in the Earth's crust than gold, silver,
the PGMs, a number of the rare earths and the likes of germanium, tantalum
and molybdenum. But as a metal, hafnium is only produced in quite small
quantities, currently probably not much more than 70 tonnes a year.
There are two main reasons for this. First, hafnium is only ever produced as a
byproduct of refining zirconium for use in nuclear-related applications,
especially in nuclear power plants. Second, it is extremely difficult to
separate the metal from zirconium, the element with which it is most often
found.
Indeed, because of this, only two significant producers of the metal exist
worldwide at present: ATI Wah Chang (part of Allegheny Technologies Inc.
(NYSE: ATI) in Oregon in the U.S.; and CEZUS in Jarrie, France (part of France's
AREVA group (PA: CEI) and the world's largest builder of nuclear power
stations).

IL - Hafnium k2 nuclear
Hafnium control rods are key to nuclear safety
Matson, writer for Scientific American, 11 (John, 5-15, Scientific
American, What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-energy-primer/, 7-16-14,
Tang)
Sustained nuclear fission reactions rely on the passing of neutrons from one
atom to anotherthe neutrons released in one atom's fissioning trigger the
fissioning of the next atom. The way to cut off a fission chain reaction, then,
is to intercept the neutrons. Nuclear reactors utilize control rods made from
elements such as cadmium, boron or hafnium, all of which are efficient
neutron absorbers. When the reactor malfunctions or when operators need to
shut off the reactor for any other reason technicians can remotely plunge
control rods into the reactor core to soak up neutrons and shut down the
nuclear reaction.

Hafnium used to control nuclear reactors


MEC, Minerals Education Coalition, 13 (Hafnium,
http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/hafnium, 7-15-14, Tang)
The most significant use of hafnium is in the production of special alloys
known as superalloys. Superalloys are alloys (mixtures) of metals that are
designed to withstand high-stress situations, such as very high temperatures
and pressures. Such metals can include iron, nickel, chromium, titanium,
niobium, hafnium and other metals. Because of its ability to absorb neutrons,
it is used to control nuclear reactions in fission reactors, including the nuclear
reactors that power nuclear submarines. Hafnium is also used as a
scavenger metal in the retrieval of oxygen and nitrogen. A scavenger metal
is one which aids in the collection of gases without reacting with them to form
other compounds.

Hafnium is key to control rods


Shikov et al., leading scientist in the field of applied
superconductivity. 3 (Alexander, O. V. Bocharov, V. M. Arzhakova, V. N.
Bexumov, Yu. A. Perlovich, M.G. Isaenkove, Use of Hafnium in Control
Elements of Nuclear Reactors and Power Units,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1027392604745 , 7-16-14,
Tang)
Metallic hafnium possesses a combination of properties that makes it the
preferred material for control elements of nuclear reactors. The distinctive
properties of hafnium include: (I) a high absorptive capacity that changes

inconsiderably in the operation because the isotopes of hafnium found under


irradiation also have a high neutron-capture cross section; (2) a high
corrosion resistance that makes it possible to use hafnium in contact with the
water coolant without pro- tective cladding: (3) high mechanical properties
that satisfy the require- ments on control rods: (4) high heat and radiation
resistance: (5) high adaptability to manufacture. which makes it pos- sible to
produce hafnium parts of virtually any shape by pres- sure treatment: (6)
availability. because hafnium is a byproduct of commercial production of
nuclear-purity zirconium. American and British nuclear submarines are
equipped with control elements employing hafnium. About half of the
hafnium consumed in the USA goes for this purpose (I. 2].

The nuclear industry relies on hafnium supply shortages


prevents long term solvency
Vulcan, researcher and contributor to
HardAssetsInvestor.com, 11 (Tom, 2-28, Hafnium: Small Supply, Big
Applications, http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/features/2572-hafniumsmall-supply-big-applications.html?showall=&fullart=1&start=5, 7-16-14,
Tang)
We have hafnium metal only as a result of the decision to use zirconium in
nuclear applications. As mentioned previously, purified zirconium must
contain as little hafnium as possible to be of any use in uranium-based fuel
rods, so the hafnium must be entirely removed. Thus, it's perhaps appropriate
that, apart from its use in alloys, one of hafnium's other major applications is
in nuclear contexts.
While the chemistry of hafnium and zirconium may be quite similar, their
properties in a nuclear environment could not be more dissimilar. Zirconium is
virtually transparent to neutrons, while hafnium is extremely absorbent. Thus,
while the fuel rods themselves are often made out of zirconium, control rods
(which mop up the neutrons flying around and, therefore, slow nuclear fission
in the reactor) are often made of hafnium. One of their first uses in this
context was in the pressurized light water reactors used to power such naval
vessels as submarines.
It is, though, interesting to note that the effects of contamination of one
metal by the other appear not to be symmetric; hafnium control rods can still
function effectively if they contain up to 4.5 percent zirconium, but certainly
not vice versa for fuel rods. In addition to its neutron absorbency, hafnium
also boasts two further valuable properties in the nuclear context: strength
and resistance to corrosion.

IL Safety
Increased costs trade off with nuclear safety
Edwards, journalist specialising in environmental issues
11 (Rob, Aug 25, The Gaurdian, Nuclear safety getting worse in military
facilities, says MoD study,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/25/nuclear-safety-military-modstudy, 7-16-14, Tang)
The risk of accidents and radioactive leaks from Britain's ageing nuclear
bombs and submarines is getting "progressively worse" because of
deepening spending cutbacks, according to an internal Ministry of Defence
report. The report, which has been released under the Freedom of Information
Act, reveals that the MoD is facing an increasing struggle to maintain the
safety of the nation's military nuclear activities as cuts become "yet more
painful". There was a "lack of adequate resource to deliver the defence
nuclear programmes safely," it says. Written by the MoD's senior nuclear
safety watchdog, the report warns that the number of incidents at nuclear
sites is "too high". This poses a "risk to the workforce and public safety and to
the environment, in both short and medium term". It also says that measures
meant to overcome prolonged shortages of safety engineers "may be
insufficient", and criticises the MoD for failing to allocate funding for the
decommissioning and disposal of 17 defunct nuclear submarines now laid up
at Devonport in Plymouth and Rosyth in Fife. The report covers 2010 and was
written by Howard Mathers, the chairman of the MoD's defence nuclear
environment and safety board. It offers an assurance that levels of nuclear
safety are currently "acceptable". But he adds: "My confidence in making this
judgement is reduced from 2009 due to the adverse trend in resources (which
I expect will become yet more painful), further aggravated by constraints on
regulatory capacity." The defence nuclear programmes are unlikely to be
exempt from the pressures caused by the MoD's plan to shed 17,000 military
and 25,000 civilian jobs, the report says. The aspiration for a 25% cut in
operating costs "is obviously pulling in an opposite direction to the current
shortfall in resource". The study urges nuclear managers "to establish the
most robust baselines possible and defend them rigorously." He cautions that
the government's decision to extend the life of the existing Trident weapons
system to save money "will present safety justification challenges". The
release of the 2010 nuclear safety report follows the release of reports for
previous years in January. "This again shows that the ever continuing
reduction in resources is putting the safety of MoD staff and the public at
increasing and indeed unacceptable risk," said Fred Dawson, a former senior
MoD safety official. "The MOD has failed to allocate sufficient resources to
nuclear safety," he told the Guardian. "The report acknowledges this situation
is becoming worse and not better." Dawson worked for the MoD for 31 years
and was head of the radiation protection policy team before retiring in 2009.
The repeated warnings by Mathers and his predecessors were clearly failing
to persuade ministers to devote enough money to nuclear safety, he argued.

John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear


Disarmament, accused the government of "cutting corners" on nuclear safety.
"The defence minister, Liam Fox, is determined to replace Trident, but he
doesn't want to spend money on protecting the public from a nuclear
accident." The MoD stressed that it maintained the highest standards of
nuclear safety and had an excellent record over the last 50 years. "This is
recognised in the report, which describes a wide range of actions we have
already taken to ensure we have sufficient numbers of qualified and
experienced personnel," said an MoD spokeswoman. "As is routine for all MoD
programmes, the submarine dismantling project is funded in stages and is
fully funded for the current assessment phase."

Safety compromises lead to meltdowns


AP, Associated Press, 11 (June 20 ,U.S. nuke regulators weaken
safety rules, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-nuke-regulators-weakensafety-rules/, 7-16-14, Tang)
LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. Federal regulators have been working closely with
the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating
within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply
failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.
Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have
decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins
could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews. The result?
Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly
undermining safety and inching the reactors closer to an accident that
could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the
United States. Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was
allowed up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused
radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes
was devised, so plants could meet standards. Failed cables. Busted seals.
Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers,
corroded metals and rusty underground pipes all of these and thousands of
other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong
investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an
accident. Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official
body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and
potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the
NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors. Industry and
government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are
being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19
percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails
between the industry and its regulator, the NRC. Records show a recurring
pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules.
Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that

existing standards are "unnecessarily conservative." Regulations are


loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance. "That's what they say for
everything, whether that's the case or not," said Demetrios Basdekas, an
engineer retired from the NRC. "Every time you turn around, they say 'We
have all this built-in conservatism.'" The ongoing crisis at the stricken,
decades-old Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan has focused attention
on the safety of plants elsewhere in the world; it prompted the NRC to look at
U.S. reactors, and a report is due in July. But the factor of aging goes far
beyond the issues posed by the disaster at Fukushima. Commercial nuclear
reactors in the United States were designed and licensed for 40 years. When
the first ones were being built in the 1960s and 1970s, it was expected that
they would be replaced with improved models long before those licenses
expired. But that never happened. The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island,
massive cost overruns, crushing debt and high interest rates ended new
construction proposals for several decades. Instead, 66 of the 104 operating
units have been relicensed for 20 more years, mostly with scant public
attention. Renewal applications are under review for 16 other reactors. By the
standards in place when they were built, these reactors are old and getting
older. As of today, 82 reactors are more than 25 years old. The AP found proof
that aging reactors have been allowed to run less safely to prolong
operations. As equipment has approached or violated safety limits, regulators
and reactor operators have loosened or bent the rules. Above: This April 2006
photo made available by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to a
public records request by The Associated Press shows a badly rusted valve in
a containment spraying system that was initially a focus of concern as
workers tried to find the source of leaks at the closed Indian Point 1 reactor in
New York state. The leakage was eventually traced to spent fuel pools. The
reactor had been shut down since 1974. (AP Photo/NRC) Last year, the NRC
weakened the safety margin for acceptable radiation damage to reactor
vessels for a second time. The standard is based on a measurement known
as a reactor vessel's "reference temperature," which predicts when it will
become dangerously brittle and vulnerable to failure. Over the years, many
plants have violated or come close to violating the standard. As a result, the
minimum standard was relaxed first by raising the reference temperature 50
percent, and then 78 percent above the original even though a broken
vessel could spill its radioactive contents into the environment. "We've seen
the pattern," said nuclear safety scientist Dana Powers, who works for Sandia
National Laboratories and also sits on an NRC advisory committee. "They're ...
trying to get more and more out of these plants."

Impact turns case


A single accident turns the case shuts down the nuclear
industry
Squassoni, senior fellow and director of the Proliferation
Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 8 (Sharon, former senior associate at Carnegie
3-12, "Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?"
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?
fa=view&id=19981&prog=zgp&proj=zn, 7-16-14, Tang)
A few caveats with respect to projecting nuclear energy expansion are
necessary. Nuclear energy is undoubtedly safer and more efficient now than
when it began fifty years ago, but it still faces four fundamental challenges:
waste, cost, proliferation, and safety. It is an inherently risky business. Most
industry executives will admit that it will only take one significant accident to
plunge the renaissance back into the nuclear Dark Ages. Because of this,
estimates are highly uncertain. For example, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration does not use its computer model to estimate nuclear energy
growth because, among other things, key variables such as public attitudes
and government policy are difficult to quantify and project. That said,
estimates tend to extrapolate electricity consumption and demand from gross
domestic product (GDP) growth, make assumptions about nuclear energys
share of electricity production, and then estimate nuclear reactor capacit y.

Aff Answers
Status quo production of zircon is increasing, so hafnium
supply is stable
USGS, United States Geological Survey, 14 (Zirconium and
Hafnium, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zirconium/mcs2014-zirco.pdf, 7-19-14, Tang)
Domestic production of zirconium mineral concentrates remained unchanged
from that in 2012, although consumption decreased from that in 2012 as
reflected by decreased imports. Domestic mining of heavy minerals
continued near Stony Creek, VA, and Starke, FL. Construction began at a new
zircon mine in Charlton County, GA, and was expected to be completed in the
second quarter 2014. A second mine in Brantley County, GA, was expected to
come on stream in the first quarter 2015. Construction of a mineral sands
plant in Pierce County, GA, to process the heavy minerals from the two new
mines, was expected to begin in late 2014. Global production of zirconium
concentrates in 2013 remained at about the same level as that in 2012,
despite a weakening demand, particularly in China, resulting from a sharp
price increase beginning in late 2011. Globally, several projects were under
development that could significantly contribute to global zircon supply. In
Kenya, mining at the Kwale project was expected to begin in late 2013.
Production of zircon was expected to be 30,000 tons per year during a mine
life of 13 years. In South Africa, production at the Tormin project was
expected to begin in late 2013 at a rate of 48,000 tons per year of
nonmagnetic concentrate grading 81% zircon and 11.6% rutile, with a 4-year
mine life. In Senegal, the Grande Cote project was expected to produce about
80,000 tons per year of zircon by the end of 2013, with a mine life of more
than 20 years. In New South Wales, Australia, zircon production from the
Dubbo Zirconia project was expected to begin in 2016 at a rate of 16,000
tons per year of zircon.

Hafnium is produced from zircon, the markets are


interconnected
USGS, United States Geological Survey, 14 (Zirconium and
Hafnium, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zirconium/mcs2014-zirco.pdf, 7-19-14, Tang)
The zirconium-silicate mineral zircon is produced as a coproduct from the
mining and processing of heavy minerals. Typically, zirconium and hafnium
are contained in zircon at a ratio of about 50 to 1. Two firms produced zircon
from surface-mining operations in Florida and Virginia. Zirconium metal and
hafnium metal were produced from zirconium chemical intermediates by two
domestic producers, one in Oregon and the other in Utah. Zirconium
chemicals were produced by the metal producer in Oregon and by at least 10

other companies. Ceramics, foundry applications, opacifiers, and refractories


are the leading end uses for zircon. Other end uses of zircon include
abrasives, chemicals, metal alloys, and welding rod coatings. The leading
consumers of zirconium metal and hafnium metal are the nuclear energy and
chemical process industries.

Prices are high now


Munnoch, CEO of Avon Metals, 13 (Steven, Jan 9 , Hafnium,
http://www.mmta.co.uk/uploads/2013/01/09/135751_hafnium_avon_metals_2
008_doc.pdf, 7-19-14, Tang)
Hafniums commercial availability coincided with the expiration of U.S.
Department of Defense contracts for nuclear reactors in 1962. The price
remained stable at about $165 per kilogram ($75 per pound) for 15 years,
and the continued availability of the metal resulted from the growth and
development of the commercial nuclear industry. Demand for hafnium
declined in the 1990s as no new orders for nuclear reactors were placed.
Demand is primarily for replacement parts and control rods in existing
nuclear reactors and as an alloying agent in certain superalloys. Hafnium
prices averaged $187 per kg in 2005 and $235 per kg in 2006. 2007 has seen
prices soar above $250 per kg in 2007. Global production of zirconium
concentrates increased to 920,000 tons in 2006, which was a moderate
increase compared with that of 2005. Global demand for zircon by the
ceramics and chemicals industries helped to increase the demand by 3%
compared with that of 2005. Meanwhile, prices for zircon concentrate
increased to record-high levels.

Hafnium is abundant and alloys solve reactor safety


MEC, Minerals Education Coalition, 13 (Hafnium,
http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/hafnium, 7-15-14, Tang)
Silver-cadmium-indium alloys can be used in place of hafnium as control rods
in nuclear reactors. In the production of superalloys, zirconium can often be
used in place of hafnium. In some applications, only hafnium gives the
desired qualities and so no substitute is possible. However, the abundance of
hafnium in storage (and the fact that its production outpaces its
consumption) means there is no immediate danger of running short of this
rare element.

Other alloys solve


Vulcan, researcher and contributor to
HardAssetsInvestor.com, 11 (Tom, 2-28, Hafnium: Small Supply, Big
Applications, http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/features/2572-hafnium-

small-supply-big-applications.html?showall=&fullart=1&start=5, 7-16-14,
Tang)
That said, however, control rods in, say, pressurized water reactors are not
exclusively made using hafnium. Because of both its limited availability and
relatively high price, a number of other materials can be and are substituted;
for example, boron or silver-indium-cadmium alloys, which usually contain 80
percent Ag, 15 percent In, and 5 percent Cd.

Meltdowns dont cause extinction- empirics


World Nuclear Association 14
(WNA, members are responsible for 95% of the world's nuclear power outside
of the U.S., as well as the vast majority of world uranium, conversion and
enrichment production, March, Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html, 7-16-14, Tang)
In the 1950s attention turned to harnessing the power of the atom in a
controlled way, as demonstrated at Chicago in 1942 and subsequently for
military research, and applying the steady heat yield to generate electricity.
This naturally gave rise to concerns about accidents and their possible
effects. However, with nuclear power safety depends on much the same
factors as in any comparable industry: intelligent planning, proper design with
conservative margins and back-up systems, high-quality components and a
well-developed safety culture in operations. A particular nuclear scenario was
loss of cooling which resulted in melting of the nuclear reactor core, and this
motivated studies on both the physical and chemical possibilities as well as
the biological effects of any dispersed radioactivity. Those responsible for
nuclear power technology in the West devoted extraordinary effort to
ensuring that a meltdown of the reactor core would not take place, since it
was assumed that a meltdown of the core would create a major public
hazard, and if uncontained, a tragic accident with likely multiple fatalities. In
avoiding such accidents the industry has been very successful. In over
14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries,
there have been only three major accidents to nuclear power plants - Three
Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima - the second being of little relevance to
reactor design outside the old Soviet bloc. It was not until the late 1970s that
detailed analyses and large-scale testing, followed by the 1979 meltdown of
the Three Mile Island reactor, began to make clear that even the worst
possible accident in a conventional western nuclear power plant or its fuel
would not be likely to cause dramatic public harm. The industry still works
hard to minimize the probability of a meltdown accident, but it is now clear
that no-one need fear a potential public health catastrophe simply because a
fuel meltdown happens. Fukushima has made that clear, with a triple
meltdown causing no fatalities or serious radiation doses to anyone, while
over two hundred people continued working on the site to mitigate the

accident's effects. The decades-long test and analysis program showed that
less radioactivity escapes from molten fuel than initially assumed, and that
most of this radioactive material is not readily mobilized beyond the
immediate internal structure. Thus, even if the containment structure that
surrounds all modern nuclear plants were ruptured, as it has been with at
least one of the Fukushima reactors, it is still very effective in preventing
escape of most radioactivity. It is the laws of physics and the properties of
materials that mitigate disaster, more than the required actions by safety
equipment or personnel. In fact, licensing approval for new plants now
requires that the effects of any core-melt accident must be confined to the
plant itself, without the need to evacuate nearby residents. The three
significant accidents in the 50-year history of civil nuclear power generation
are: Three Mile Island (USA 1979) where the reactor was severely damaged
but radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or
environmental consequences Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the
destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and
had significant health and environmental consequences. The death toll has
since increased to about 5 Fukushima (Japan 2011) where three old reactors
(together with a fourth) were written off and the effects of loss of cooling due
to a huge tsunami were inadequately contained. A table showing all reactor
accidents, and a table listing some energy-related accidents with multiple
fatalities are appended. These three significant accidents occurred during
more than 14,000 reactor-years of civil operation. Of all the accidents and
incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation
doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural
sources. The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of
workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health, unlike
Chernobyl. Other incidents (and one 'accident') have been completely
confined to the plant. Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members
of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a
commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the serious radiological injuries
and deaths that occur each year (2-4 deaths and many more exposures
above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources,
such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment. (There have also been a
number of accidents in experimental reactors and in one military plutoniumproducing pile - at Windscale, UK, in 1957, but none of these resulted in loss
of life outside the actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.)
See also Table 2 in Appendix.