CNDI 08 EF/ML

Nuclear Power Aff Updates

NUCLEAR POWER AFF - UPDATES

NUCLEAR POWER AFF - UPDATES...............................................................................1

AT: STATES CP...................................................................................................................2
AT: STATES CP...................................................................................................................3
AT: STATES CP...................................................................................................................4
AT: STATES CP – FEDERAL AGENCIES KEY...............................................................5
AT: STATES CP...................................................................................................................6
AT: STATES CP...................................................................................................................7
AT: ELECTIONS.................................................................................................................8
AT: ELECTIONS.................................................................................................................9
AT: CHINA CP..................................................................................................................10

1
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: STATES CP
There are fierce opposition and prohibitive laws in many states. Making all 50
states work together is impossible.
E. Michael Blake, writer for Nuclear News, 2006, “Where New Reactors Can (And Can’t
Be Built)” http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2006-11-2.pdf
The accompanying map shows three zones of different interest: states that have taken legal steps to avert (or at least defer) new reactor
development, states that have neither laws against nor apparent interest in new reactors, and states
without restrictions
and with declared intent to pursue new reactor licensing. The latter group has just
emerged in the past three years, and while it has grown rapidly, there is no
assurance that it will continue to do so. For most expected license applicants, the exploration of new nuclear
capacity has been spurred by a combination of favorable factors, such as high projected demand growth, federal incentives, concerns
about rising prices of and emissions from fossil fuels, and prospects for return on investment (as through rate recovery in states that
If not enough favorable factors apply in a certain state, it may
have not deregulated electricity).
not matter what nuclear laws are on the books. If Wisconsin repeals its law tying new reactors to HLW
disposal, its demand growth may still be too modest to encourage new reactor projects. New reactors in upstate New York could make
more nuclear power available in Connecticut, Maine, and New Jersey, so even if the laws in these states remain in force, there might
be no impact on whether nuclear power revives in the United States. Even Illinois would be unlikely to add much nuclear capacity
soon—beyond, say, Clinton-2—either if its law were repealed or the legislature-vote exception case were used; demand growth is not
as vigorous there as it is in the South. Only in California would a change in the law open a major opportunity for nuclear power, and
even then the environmental issues (especially related to cooling water) would still be contentious. Also, it
should not be
assumed that the roster of restrictive states will remain static. The Iowa Democratic Party
has as one of its platform planks for the 2006 election a ban on new reactor construction
in the state. Just because nuclear proponents have made headway recently in some
areas does not mean that the struggle between proponents and opponents is over.

2
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: STATES CP
The only authority states have over nuclear power is to restrict it, exactly the
opposite of the counterplan.
E. Michael Blake, writer for Nuclear News, 2006, “Where New Reactors Can (And Can’t
Be Built)” http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2006-11-2.pdf

The use of state permitting authority to place HLW-based

restrictions on reactor projects has withstood court tests and has given
nuclear opponents an opening to achieve what they could not at the federal level.
The federal laws on nuclear energy almost entirely reserve
authority to federal agencies, and this has always been upheld
in court. No state agency, for instance, can unilaterally order a reactor
to close. While this has generally shielded existing reactors from opposition, special-case
additions to state permitting processes have mainly survived court tests and
continue to be obstacles to new reactor projects.

3
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: STATES CP
State adoption of the plan is bad because the states constantly mismanage nuclear
waste.
David H. Leroy, Leroy Law Offices, Michael T. Ryan, Charleston Southern University,
and John R. Wiley, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, May 25, 2006,
“Improving the regulation and management of low-activity radioactive waste”
http://www.health-physics.com/pt/re/healthphys/pdfhandler.00004032-200611000-
00006.pdf;jsessionid=Lv0BynQGHppHXt2TJxB6vnQqbnBFkTQRBmFJHVnt6wbRkl8p
H91w!1475522543!181195628!8091!-1

Regulations focused on the origin of individual wastes have led to inconsistencies relative
to their associated radiological risks. [Diffuse] NORM and TENORM are not regulated
by federal agencies because they do not fall under the AEA. State regulation of these
wastes is inconsistent. Nevertheless, these wastes may have significant
concentrations of radioactive materials compared to some highly regulated waste
streams. For example, NORM wastes routinely accepted at a landfill triggered a radiation
monitor intended to ensure that rubble from a decommissioned nuclear reactor meets very
strict limits on its radioactivity (Appendix A).

4
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: STATES CP – FEDERAL AGENCIES KEY

Federal agencies should implement a plan for nuclear energy, not states.
Health Physics Society, January 2006, “Continued Federal and State Action Is Needed
For Better Control of Radioactive Sources”,
http://hps.org/documents/sourcecontrol_ps021-0.pdf

The HPS supports the IAEA categorization system, but recognizes there is a need for
other categorization levels for different purposes to support missions of the various
federal agencies. The HPS believes that federal agencies must continue working
together as they develop a consistent national regulatory framework that serves as
the basis for a prioritization system that all agencies can use in achieving their
respective goals and responsibilities.

5
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: STATES CP
Only the federal government can enforce compliance, create uniform standards, and
fund long-term commitments.
John Byrne, Kristen Hughes, Lado Kurdgelashvili, all from the Center for Energy and
Environmental Policy (CEEP), and Wilson Rickerson, from the CEEP and the Center for
Sustainable Energy at Bronx Community College, February 19, 2007, “American policy
conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green
energy and climate change policy”,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V2W-4NRVV0Y-1-
9&_cdi=5713&_user=4420&_orig=search&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2007&_sk=9996
49990&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-
zSkzk&md5=b3d852db334ed16296d3bcf4b5266a63&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Effective global mitigation of climate change will require strong leadership by national
governments, including that of the US. More specifically, national governments remain vital in
mandating and enforcing compliance among diverse actors within their jurisdiction. Only
national governments can promote uniform standards for compliance and related
programs, thus ensuring achievement of policy goals with maximum fairness and
minimal costs (Rabe, 2002). National funding also remains vital to underwrite long-
term commitments needed to meet ever more challenging climate action targets (Rabe, 2002).

6
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: STATES CP
In the past, federal investment has helped nuclear energy, not states’ investment.
Scott Peterson, Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute, January 24, 2007,
“Breezing Past Nuclear Energy’s Value”, From Proquest.com
It was amusing that Michele Boyd, energy program legislative director for Public Citizen [letters, Jan. 18], pointed to federal
investment in nuclear energy, rather than Mother Nature, as the reason the United States cannot rely on wind and solar power
as round-the-clock sources of electricity. Federal research and development policies aren't the reason that, as the online
newsletter Energy Pulse reported, wind power production "at the time of peak demand" during last summer's California heat
wave was just 4 percent of that energy source's rated generating capacity. While the windmills were there, the wind wasn't. It
was also instructive that Ms. Boyd didn't provide a source for her statistical comparison of federal research and development
investment in renewable and nuclear energy technologies. A January 2002 study by the
Cato Institute, citing
Energy Department figures, noted that from 1982 to 2002 renewable energy technologies
received $24.2 billion in federal research and development funds, compared with $20.1 billion
for nuclear power. As for Ms. Boyd's claim of a nuclear bounty in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, she ignored the
reality that the legislation authorized $600 million more for renewable energy R&D over three years ($2.2 billion vs. $1.6
billion) and included a mandate that the federal government buy at least 7.5 percent of its electricity supplies from renewable
federal investment in
sources by 2013. Ms. Boyd can garble the numbers, but she can't change the fact that
nuclear energy has benefited society by helping to yield 20 percent of America's
real -- rather than theoretical -- electricity.

7
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: ELECTIONS
Nuclear energy is popular among Americans.
MSNBC, June 25, 2008, “Poll Reveals Surprising Support for Nuclear Power”,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25371194/

Now anew poll shows about 67 percent of Americans are in support of building more
nuclear power plants to expand the nation's energy portfolio. The nation's nuclear regulatory
agency is reviewing about 36 new applications for plants here in the U.S. right now. "There are almost the same number, nearly three
dozen nuclear power stations actually under construction around the world, outside the U.S. So it's clear that people are tumbling
toward the idea that nuclear is a way to make huge quantities of reliable affordable energy, and in particular, power that has no
greenhouse gas emissions," said Brad Peck with Energy Northwest, the public power co-op who runs the northwest's only nuclear
power station. But Peck said he doesn't expect anything to pop up here anytime soon. Numbers
also show more than
70 percent of Americans in favor of new plants at already existing sites.

8
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: ELECTIONS
No link-Both McCain and Obama support nuclear energy. McCain won’t steal the
issue.
Richard Simon, writer for the Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2007, “Pelosi, Clinton, Obama
Favor More Nuclear Plants”, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-
N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas
emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.

9
CNDI 08 EF/ML
Nuclear Power Aff Updates

AT: CHINA CP
China does not approve of nuclear power, rather they are going to support the coal
industry more.
Alexis Madrigal, 10/25/07. An analyst, who went to Harvard.
(“Nuclear power to explore in India, but prefers China. Wired
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/10/nuclear_report )

To curb greenhouse gas emissions, India is poised to dramatically increase its reliance on
nuclear energy -- but there'll be no overall benefit to the planet if China's coal binge
continues.

A new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency forecasts India will increase
nuclear production eight-fold by 2030 to account for 26 percent of its power grid.

However, China plans to use nuclear power for only 4 percent of electricity generation by
2030. Globally, the IAEA estimates there'll be drop an overall drop in nuclear energy
from around 15 percent in 2006, down to 13 percent in 2030.

China will not go for nuclear power, coal energy is more popular and accessible.

World Nuclear Association, May 2008. (“The Economics of Nuclear Power.” WNA.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html ).

The relative costs of generating electricity from coal, gas and nuclear plants vary
considerably depending on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically
attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible
domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive
for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though
rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.

10