Offshore Wind Affirmative, Offshore Wind Negative ...dallasurbandebate.wikispaces.com/file/view/DUDA Novice Core Files... · Offshore Wind Affirmative, Offshore Wind Negative, & ...

Better students. Better Dallas.

Offshore Wind Affirmative, Offshore Wind Negative, &

Offshore Wind Off-Case

for the:

High School Novice Division

For links to the original articles, videos, and other educational resources, visit our resource page:

http://dallasurbandebate.wikispaces.com Please note: we have provided a supplemental quick reference resource on the next page for students to use in debate rounds to keep track of speech times and responsibilities.

Better students. Better Dallas.

Quick Reference: Speech Order & Times

Debate has very few restrictions in terms of what you can argue – but (like any sport) we do have rules that set how long you speak and what order you and your peers will speak in. Every debater will give two speeches (an 8 minute constructive and a 5 minute rebuttal), will be cross-examined once, and will cross-examine another student once. While we will randomly decide when you are affirmative and negative, you and your partner get to pick which speeches you give – the first or the second set (1AC/1AR or 2AC/2AR, etc.).

Here are the speeches in order: 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC) – the speaker introduces the affirmative’s case. This speech is already prepared and in your evidence packets. 1st Negative Constructive (1NC) – this speech will introduce the arguments that the negative team will use during the debate. 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC) – this speaker refutes all of the arguments made by the negative by reading new evidence & referencing evidence from the first affirmative speech.

“The Negative Block:” 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC) & 1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR) – the negative debaters split up the arguments from the first negative speech and flesh them out while answering affirmative arguments. 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) – this speaker has a limited amount of time to answer the arguments made in the block and to re-assert the affirmative case. 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR) – this is the last negative speech – this speaker’s job is to provide a clear set of reasons why the negative team should win the debate. Think of this speech like a conclusion to a paper. 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) – this is the last speech in the debate – this speaker should quickly refute the negative’s best arguments and then refocus the debate on why the affirmative plan is best. This speech is also like a conclusion – it is about quickly summarizing why you should win.

Cross-Examination (CX) and Prep Time:

Cross-examination – is a 3-minute question and answer session after each constructive, when the opposing team asks the person who just spoke questions in order to clarify or point out the flaws of an argument.

Preparation time – each team is given 8 minutes of “prep-time” that they can take at any point before or after a speech to write notes, find evidence, organize their thoughts, etc. To use it, just announce that you want to take some prep time. Remember, you only get 8 minutes of time for the whole debate, so use it wisely!

High School Time Limits:

CONSTRUCTIVES 1AC – 8 minutes CX’d by 2N - 3 minutes 1NC - 8 minutes CX’d by 1A - 3 minutes 2AC - 8 minutes CX’d by 1N - 3 minutes 2NC - 8 minutes CX’d by 2A - 3 minutes

REBUTTALS 1NR - 5 minutes 1AR - 5 minutes 2NR - 5 minutes 2AR - 5 minutes

Each team gets 8 minutes of prep

time to use between speeches.

Offshore Wind Affirmative DUDA 2014-2015 Novice Division

Pg. 1

Offshore Wind Affirmative – Table of Contents (1/2)

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 4

1AC .................................................................................................................................................... 5-8 Advantages

Climate Change Advantage:

Answers to: Climate change is a natural cycle ............................................................................. 10 Answers to: Other countries produce CO2 emissions ................................................................. 11 Answers to: People will still use fossil fuels for energy ................................................................ 12 Answers to: Wind can’t supply enough energy to reduce emissions ...................................... 13-14

Energy Poverty Advantage:

Impact Extension – Affordable energy is a human right ............................................................... 15 Answers to: Renewable energy advances fuel poverty ............................................................... 16 Answers to: Wind energy is more expensive than alternatives ............................................... 17-18 Answers to: Energy efficient housing is the only way to solve ..................................................... 19

Jobs/Manufacturing Advantage:

Advantage Add-on: Jobs/Manufacturing ................................................................................. 20-21 Answers to: Wind industry jobs are temporary ............................................................................. 22 Answers to: Wind industry jobs aren’t cost effective .................................................................... 23

Solvency

Answers to: No solvency – Delays in implementation .................................................................. 24 Answers to: No solvency – Delays (Technology/Regulations) ..................................................... 25 Answers to: No solvency – Delays (Infrastructure) ...................................................................... 26 Answers to: Regulatiory delays deter investors ........................................................................... 27

Answers to Off Case Arguments Answers to: Turbine Construction Disadvantage:

Other industries use rare earth minerals ...................................................................................... 28 No supply shortage – other countries produce rare earth minerals ............................................. 29 Wind is cleaner than fossil fuels ................................................................................................... 30 Offshore rigs protect the environment .......................................................................................... 31 Climate change outweighs species loss ...................................................................................... 32


Pg. 2

Offshore Wind Affirmative – Table of Contents (2/2) Answers to: Nuclear Power Disadvantage:

Nuclear power industry already declining .................................................................................... 33 Grid is reliable – shocks don’t cause collapse ............................................................................. 34 Offshore wind increases grid reliability......................................................................................... 35 Nuclear power bad – Generic ...................................................................................................... 36 Nuclear power bad – Risk of proliferation .................................................................................... 37 Nuclear power bad – Target for terrorism .................................................................................... 38 Nuclear power bad – Radioactive waste ...................................................................................... 39 Answers to: Wind requires gas backup because it’s intermittent ................................................. 40


Pg. 3

Summary

This affirmative argues that the United States should increase the number of electricity-generating wind turbines in the ocean by offering tax breaks to wind energy companies for their offshore operations. Stable, long term tax breaks will arguably create a rapid and sizable boom in the offshore wind industry, laying the groundwork for a transition towards renewable energy consumption.

This packet contains three main reasons why offering tax breaks for offshore wind operations is a good idea:

First, climate change – the United States currently relies mostly on fossil fuels to power homes and drive its economy. The development of a successful offshore wind industry will help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel consumption, which have been shown to cause health problems and potentially catastrophic environmental changes.

Second, energy poverty – high fuel costs uniquely impact people in poverty. Subsidized wind energy would be less expensive than natural gas or other fuel sources, which would make electricity accessible to more people.

Third, jobs/manufacturing – increased federal support for the offshore wind industry would drive the creation of a number of jobs in the maritime industry, boosting the economy.


Pg. 4

Glossary

Climate Change - is a significant and lasting change in weather patterns and global temperature, arguably caused by an increase in carbon emissions over the past century.

Carbon/CO2 emissions – carbon and carbon dioxide emissions are by-products of burning fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuels – are a limited resource composed of the remains of living organisms – examples include oil, natural gas, and coal.

Energy Poverty - is lack of access to modern energy services, such as electricity.

Fuel Poverty – the inability to afford to enough energy to sustain a decent way of life.

Subsidies – are a form of financial support given by governments to specific industries, often with the intention of promoting business growth or technological innovation.

Free Market - a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are free of intervention by a government, price-setting monopolies, or other authority.

Human Right – basic, fundamental rights to which every person is entitled to because they are human beings.

Nuclear Power – a form of electric or motor power generated by nuclear reactions.

Biodiversity - the variety of species in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem.

Wind energy – a form of electric or motor power generated by harnessing the power of the wind.


Pg. 5

1AC (1/5)

Contention 1 is Inherency:

Wind energy production is stalling in the United States – lack of long term tax subsidies from the federal government deters investors from investing in new projects. USA Today, 2014 (“US wind industry slammed by tax uncertainty, fracking,” USA Today, April 19, Online: http://www.htrnews.com/viewart/20140420/MAN03/304200220/US-wind-industry-slammed-by-tax-uncertainty-fracking) Once a booming industry, U.S. wind power saw its growth plummet 92 percent last year as it wrestled with tax uncertainties and cheap natural gas.¶ The industry is still growing but not nearly as fast, says a report by the American Wind Energy Association. It added a record 13,131 megawatts of power in 2012 but that fell to only 1,087 MW last year — the lowest level since 2004.¶

One reason was investors’ uncertainty that Congress would renew a federal wind tax subsidy. “People didn’t know it would be passed ... so they weren’t creating new projects” early last year, says AWEA’s president Tom Kiernan. He says it takes about nine months to plan a wind farm, so the one-year extension in January 2013 didn’t trigger a flurry of new wind farm construction until the second half of 2013.¶ He expects this year will see a rebound in new capacity but how much will depend on whether Congress extends the tax subsidy, which expired in January. An extension is pending in the Senate. Retailer IKEA has announced Thursday that it’s building a wind farm in Hoopeston, Ill., slated to open in early 2015.¶ The AWEA report is the latest to show the challenges confronting the clean energy sector. Last year, investments in renewable energy fell 14percent globally and 10 percent in the United States, according to an analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme. It says U.S. investments in wind were $13.3 billion, down from $14.5 billion in 2012.


Pg. 6

1AC (2/5)

Contention 2 is Climate Change:

The United States’ reliance on carbon based fuels drives climate change and environmental disasters – offshore wind is the key to transition to clean energy production. Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast Alliance, 2010 (Jacqueline, “Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,” Oceana Report, September, Online: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf) Most of the energy generated in the United States comes from fuel sources that must be mined, drilled, or extracted from deep within the Earth—each of which comes with its own set of negative environmental, economic, and sociological side-effects. In 2009, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) reported that 85 percent of all of the country’s energy was coming from fossil fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal.5 Continued use of fossil fuels is very risky: prices of these non-renewable resources are highly volatile; reliance on oil creates a dependence on countries that may pose threats to national security; and much of the environmental damage done by mining, drilling, and burning fossil fuels is irreversible.¶ In addition, fossil-fuel based energy production has hidden costs, including climate change. The carbon dioxide emissions from the fuels burned to produce energy are warming the planet, which results in a long list of associated impacts, ranging from melting sea ice and rising sea level to changes in patterns of food production and water availability. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels alters the planet’s climate systems, and it affects the oceans as well.¶ Ocean acidification, or the decline in the pH of ocean water due to the absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is a major threat to marine ecosystems and species, as well as about one billion people who rely on the seas for food. Solving the global climate crisis requires a global transformation in energy production and consumption methods, including changes in transportation and electricity generation. The vast majority of our electricity comes from nonrenewable resources that have major environmental impacts, while they also weaken national security, and have a wide range of economic and social costs.¶ Fortunately there is time to modernize these systems and minimize these threats to the planet. Clean energy, energy efficiency, and hybrid or electric transportation are all part of a new energy economy that is being built right now. Thousands of people are employed in “green collar” jobs relating to clean energy, and billions of dollars are being invested annually in renewable energy. Even a small fraction of the United States’ renewable energy resources is enough to power the country several times over, and one of the least expensive and easiest ways to produce clean energy that will decrease carbon emissions and help save the oceans comes from the seas themselves—offshore wind power.


Pg. 7

1AC (3/5)

Contention 3 is Energy Poverty:

High fuel prices are one of the biggest burdens on impoverished families – lowering the cost of energy should be the first priority in solving poverty. Holt, President of the Consumer Energy Alliance, 2014 (David, “Energy key to solving income inequality,” January 28, Online: http://theenergyvoice.com/energy-key-solving-income-inequality/) When exploring solutions to income inequality policy makers pay close attention to the costs. The cost of healthcare. The cost of food. The cost of child care. The cost of housing.¶ What about the cost of energy?¶ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 the average U.S. family spent over $4,600 or about 9 percent of their budget to heat and power their homes and fuel their vehicles. Families in the bottom fifth of income earners spent nearly 33 percent more of their budget on energy costs than average $2,500 a year or 12% of their annual budget. Reference the chart to the left and you will find that low-income families spend two and half times more on energy than on health services. Unlike food and housing, consumers cannot shop around for the lowest cost energy. Bargains can be found in the supermarket, but, prices at the pump do not vary from one station to the next. Conservation similarly is not an option when it’s a choice between driving to work or saving a gallon of gasoline.¶ A solution to remedying income inequality is tackling rising energy costs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects the price of electricity will rise 13.6 percent and the price of gasoline by 15.7 percent from now until 2040. Rising global demand, aging and insufficient¶ energy infrastructure and restrictive government policies all play a role in increasing costs.President Obama has the ability to reverse this trend and lessen the blow to all consumers.¶ Take the shale gas boom for example. Increasing access to private and state lands and sound state regulatory programs have boosted production of natural gas and led to a significant lowering of prices. IHS CERA predicted that the shale revolution lifted household income by more than $1,200 in 2012 through lower energy costs, more job opportunities and greater federal and state tax revenues.¶ Policy makers should promote responsible energy development with the knowledge that it will have a positive affect on even the most vulnerable. The president has the power to act. Permitting energy infrastructure – including the Keystone XL Pipeline, opening new offshore areas to oil and natural gas development, and finalizing the nuclear waste confidence rulemaking, could transform the energy economy.¶ If policy makers want to take meaningful action to help our nation’s low income families, they must pursue actions that help lower – not raise – the cost of energy.


Pg. 8

1AC (4/5)

Long term projections prove wind is the cheapest fuel source available to the United States. Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast Alliance, 2010 (Jacqueline, “Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,” Oceana Report, September, Online: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf) As shown in the three previous examples, offshore wind energy can create more electricity, heat more homes or power more¶ cars than the offshore oil and gas that is being considered for¶ production on the East Coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.¶ Offshore wind energy potential is much greater than that of new¶ offshore oil and gas and the cost is much lower. Developing the¶ 127 gigawatts of offshore wind energy described above would cost about $36 billion less over 20 years than the estimated cost¶ of producing the economically recoverable oil and natural gas¶

combined. Better still, unlike the oil and natural gas resources,¶ offshore wind is not finite and, unlike the oil and gas, will not¶ become depleted. However, the estimated lifetime of an offshore wind turbine is about 20 years and a new turbine will eventually¶ need to be installed in order to continue to capture wind energy. Therefore a comparison of costs and benefits over 20 years is an appropriate one.¶ According to MMS, 20 years worth of East Coast offshore oil at¶ $110 per barrel would cost consumers $720 billion, and the natural¶ gas would cost $449 billion. After the East Coast’s offshore oil¶ and gas have been extracted, nearly $1.17 trillion will have been transferred from consumers to the oil and gas industry, and then no more energy will be available. Developing the 127 gigawatts of offshore wind energy described above – instead of drilling for oil and gas, would cost about $1.13 trillion, $36 billion less than the oil and gas costs over 20 years. Notwithstanding the cost savings, as described above the wind investment also produced more energy in every scenario considered. By investing in¶ offshore wind on the East Coast, instead of offshore oil and gas in the areas that were previously protected in the Atlantic and eastern Gulf, Americans would get more energy for less money.¶ There is another downside to high oil and gas prices. As oil and gas prices increase, the industry can use the proceeds to extract resources that were previously not cost-effective to recover – for instance, deep water oil and gas resources. In turn, the oil and gas companies sell these harder-to-extract resources at higher prices to customers. Thus, high oil prices not only increase the cost at the pump, they also increase the risks and potential harm to marine life from more extreme production processes.

Thus, we present the following plan:

The United States Federal Government should offer a long-term extension of tax credits to offshore wind energy projects located in U.S. territorial waters.


Pg. 9

1AC (5/5)

Contention 4 is Solvency:

Congress can help wind farms overcome cost hurdles by offering investment tax credit and loan guarantees – that will provide an essential boost to transition to renewable energy. Caperton, Conathan, and Weidman, 2012 (Richard - Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael - Director of Ocean Policy, and Jackie - a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at the Center for American Progress, “Encouraging Investment Is Key to U.S. Offshore Wind Development,” Center for American Progress, Jan 12, Online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/01/12/10951/encouraging-investment-is-key-to-u-s-offshore-wind-development/) Specifically, NRG placed the blame for this outcome squarely on the shoulders of Congress: Two aspects of the project critical for success have actually gone backwards: the decisions of Congress to eliminate funding for the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program applicable to offshore wind, and the failure to extend the Federal Investment and Production Tax Credits … which have rendered the Delaware project both unfinanceable and financially untenable. While the challenges facing this project are big, they’re solvable. As NRG alludes to, targeted, efficient incentives from the federal government would allow this project to move forward. The production tax credit Currently, offshore wind projects are eligible for the production tax credit. This is a credit based on how much electricity a wind turbine generates, and is currently worth 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Unfortunately, this credit expires at the end of 2012, and a long-term extension of the credit is uncertain. CAP has called on Congress to extend the credit for four more years, which will provide needed policy certainty for investors in wind projects. ¶ The investment tax credit While NRG Bluewater Wind would clearly benefit from a production tax credit extension, other incentives may be more useful for this project. For onshore wind projects—with relatively predictable performance over the life of the project—the production tax credit is very valuable. For offshore wind, however, the credit is less valuable to the project developer. Because offshore wind turbines are relatively new technology and are deployed in environments that have never been used for energy generation, developers can’t predict how much power a turbine will generate as accurately as they can with onshore wind. Thus, developers aren’t as certain about how big their tax credits will be, which affects the profitability of the project. Congress could fix this problem by making offshore wind eligible for the investment tax credit. Instead of getting a tax credit as power is generated, the investment tax credit would allow offshore wind developers to get an upfront credit for 30 percent of their initial investment, encouraging more to invest. This is much more useful for technologies with more performance uncertainty—like offshore wind—and would be a smart example of matching the tax code to the unique circumstances facing innovative industries.


Pg. 10

Answers to: Climate change is a natural cycle

[ ]

[ ] Climate change isn’t natural, it’s caused by CO2 emissions – statistical analysis of average temperatures around the world shows a distinct spike since the industrial era began. Foley, reporter for Nature World News, 2014 (James, “Historical Analysis of Climate Change Supports Man-Made Warming with 99.9% Certainty,” Nature World News, April 11, Online: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6598/20140411/historical-analysis-of-climate-change-supports-man-made-warming-with-99-9-certainty.htm) New historical climate analysis by a McGill University researcher indicates that climate change in the industrial era is man-made with "greater than 99.9 percent" certainty.¶ Writing in the journal Climate Dynamics, McGill physicist Shaun Lovejoy reports his analysis of temperature data since the year 1500, concluding that global warming over the last century is not a result of natural long-term variations in temperature, but instead an anthropogenic effect.¶ "This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers," Lovejoy said in a statement. "Their two most convincing arguments - that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong - are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it."¶ Lovejoy's approach did not rely on climate-simulating computer models, but a statistical analysis based on historical temperature records. The research employed a technique called "multi-proxy climate reconstructions" which are used to estimate historical temperatures. These climate reconstructions take into account data derived from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments.¶ The likelihood that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability can be ruled out "with confidence levels greater than 99 percent, and most likely greater than 99.9 percent," Lovejoy said.¶ To analyze industrial-era climate change, Lovejoy used carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences. This simplification is justified, Lovejoy said, because of the "tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution."¶ "This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models," Lovejoy added.¶ Lovejoy's research falls in line with the recently released IPCC report on climate change. A doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause warming between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. The IPCC report predicted temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.¶ "We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 - on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy said. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.¶ "While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can't generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases - including this one - the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other," he said.


Pg. 11

Answers to: Other countries produce CO2 emissions

[ ]

[ ] A strong wind industry in the United States can spur international emission reductions – it gives us leverage in international negotiations and makes us look less hypocritical. Giordano, JD from University of Richmond School of Law, 2010 (Michael, “Offshore Windfall: What Approval of the United States’ First Offshore Wind Project Means for the Offshore Wind Energy Industry,” University of Richmond Law Review, 44:3, March, Online: http://lawreview.richmond.edu/offshore-windfall/) A real offshore wind farm may encourage government to rethink investment in offshore wind energy. Potential developers who begin to invest large sums of capital will likely put pressure on federal and state politicians to increase government incentives for offshore wind. Such pressure may be what the industry needs in order to achieve the long-term financial guarantees it desires.[156] Long-term guarantees will then lead to even further investment.¶ New investments will positively influence innovation and new technologies to meet offshore wind energy’s growing needs. The industry will be better suited to develop larger turbines at a lower cost. As the cycle continues and the industry becomes more and more mature, offshore wind energy may someday gain a competitive advantage over other renewable energies and traditional fossil fuels.¶ C. Global Impact¶ Another important aspect of Cape Wind is its role in demonstrating to the world that the United States is committed to the development of renewable energy and, in particular, offshore wind energy.[157] The international community has criticized the United States for failing to show leadership on the issue of global climate change.[158] As the United Nations continues to seek an international agreement that addresses climate change on a world-wide level,[159] the United States can point to Cape Wind as a sign of things to come. Cape Wind’s construction would provide a positive example of the United States’ commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing global climate change.¶ V. Conclusion¶ As the first proposed offshore wind project in United States waters, Cape Wind endured an arduous process filled with delays caused by skepticism and the lack of a defined regulatory scheme. The project’s developers never flinched, despite the fact that their personal fortunes were on the line. Their persistence has paid off, as Cape Wind is one last hurdle away from beginning construction. New Englanders stand to receive an average output of approximately 186 MW of clean, renewable energy from Cape Wind’s turbines;[160] however, Cape Wind’s greatest gifts will be the trail it blazes as America’s first offshore wind farm, the confidence it will give to investors and policymakers, and the blueprint it will provide for future offshore wind energy projects.


Pg. 12

Answers to: People will still use fossil fuels for energy

[ ]

[ ] Wind energy would replace carbon-based fuels used for generating electricity, heating, and cooking – that would drastically undermine fossil fuel use. Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast Alliance, 2010 (Jacqueline, “Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,” Oceana Report, September, Online: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf) Currently, wind energy may not be seen as a viable replacement for oil and gas because the two types of energy are largely used for different things. Oil is most commonly used in transportation to fuel cars, trucks and other vehicles. Wind energy, on the other hand, is used to generate electricity which is most commonly used to power homes and businesses, although some transportation uses do currently rely on electricity. Less than 1 percent of electricity generated nationwide is fueled by petroleum70, while 99 percent of the petroleum used is consumed by cars and trucks. Less than 1 percent of our electricity is used for transportation, while 95 percent is used in the residential, business and industrial sectors.71¶ Despite this apparent disconnect, wind power can directly offset oil consumption in the electricity generation and home heating sectors. Currently, 43.7 million barrels of oil are consumed annually to generate electricity across the country.72 This amount of electricity73 could easily be generated by offshore wind.¶

Approximately 7 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind power would be needed to replace the oil currently used in power generation.74 While this may seem like a small amount it would be an important step in moving away from fossil fuels and cutting down climate change pollution—and it is clearly achievable. The U.S. already has about 35 GW of onshore wind in place and more on the way. The U.S. could have 20 GW of offshore by 2020 if it made the commitment to do so—the United Kingdom, which has made such a commitment, plans to install 33 GW of offshore wind by 2020. The sooner renewable energies begin to replace oil in the electricity generating sector, the sooner carbon dioxide emissions and petroleum demand can begin to be reduced.¶ Another immediate way offshore wind energy can cut oil and natural gas consumption is through heating. Many homes and buildings still use fuel oil and natural gas for heating purposes such as space heating, cooking, and water heating.75 On the East Coast, nearly 7 million homes rely on fuel oil as the primary source of heating, representing about 88 percent of the country’s heating oil demand.76 Switching these homes from fuel oil to electric heating (nearly 16.6 million homes on the East Coast already use electricity for their primary source of heating), almost 123 million barrels of oil would be conserved annually. About 5 GW of wind power would be needed to provide the electricity to heat these 7 million homes, an amount that is well in line with the projected 20 GW of offshore wind that could be in place by 2020.¶ Installing 20 GW of offshore wind power with the explicit purpose of offsetting domestic oil consumption would generate enough energy to eliminate nearly 167 million barrels of oil demand annually—more than is currently used in home heating and electricity generation.


Pg. 13

Answers to: Wind can’t supply enough energy to reduce emissions

[ ]

[ ] Widespread adoption in coastal states would cut 335 million metric tons of CO2 emissions a year. Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast Alliance, 2010 (Jacqueline, “Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,” Oceana Report, September, Online: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf) In addition to the environmental benefits over traditional energy sources, like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power, a significant amount of offshore wind energy potential exists on the Atlantic coast. If developed even modestly, offshore wind energy could supply almost half of East Coast current electricity generation— while creating thousands of jobs, stabilizing electric costs, cutting fossil fuel consumption and reducing harmful air emissions. The prospects of offshore wind power are too large to ignore, even at this early stage of the industry’s development.¶ Although onshore wind power in the United States currently supplies enough electricity for nearly seven million homes annually, to date no wind turbines have been installed offshore.63 However, a handful of offshore wind projects are planned to be built in American waters representing a combined 2.5 gigawatts (GW) of electrical capacity.64 These projects alone, if developed, could produce enough electricity to power nearly 800,000 American homes annually—and eliminate over 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.¶ However, there is much more offshore wind potential available. This analysis found that conservatively, 127 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy are currently economically available off the East Coast of the United States. Of the thirteen East Coast states measured2, six could supply more than 50 percent of their own electricity with offshore wind power. Excluding New Hampshire’s and Maine’s potential (see note below Table 4), offshore wind could supplant 70 percent of the East Coast’s fossil-fuel based electricity. Providing this quantity of clean energy could cut 335 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually—while limiting the risk of exposure to highly volatile energy expenses.


Pg. 14

Answers to: Wind can’t supply enough energy to reduce emissions

[ ]

[ ] Offshore wind farms can offset emissions and halt warming – they’ll produce 4 times the energy we need to power the US Thaler, Visiting Professor of Energy Policy & Law at University of Maine School of Law and Economics, 2012 (Jeff, “FIDDLING AS THE WORLD BURNS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE URGENTLY REQUIRES A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PERMITTING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS,” Environmental Law, Vol 42 Iss 4, Sept 17, Online: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/13156-thalerready-for-websitepdf) As noted in Part I, offshore wind energy projects have the potential to generate large quantities of pollutant-free electricity near many of the world’s major population centers, and thus to help reduce the ongoing and projected economic, health, and environmental damages from climate change. Wind speeds over water are stronger and more consistent than over land, and “have a gross potential generating capacity four times greater than the nation’s present electric capacity.”119 The net capacity factor for offshore turbines is greater than standard land-based turbines, and their blade-tip speeds are higher than their land-based counterparts. Offshore wind turbine substructure designs mainly fall into three depth categories: shallow (30 m or less), transitional (30 m to 60 m), and deep water (greater than 60 m).122 Most of the grid-scale offshore wind farms in Europe have monopole foundations embedded into the seabed in water depths ranging from 5 m to 30 m;123 the proposed American projects such as Cape Wind in Massachusetts and Block Island in Rhode Island would likewise be shallow- water installations.124 In deeper water, it is not economically feasible to affix a rigid structure to the sea floor, and floating platforms are envisioned. The three concepts shown below have been developed for floating platform designs, each of which is tethered but not built into the seabed.125 Each design uses a different method for achieving static stability, and some small pilot efforts are underway to demonstrate the performance of different turbines.126 Greater wind speeds and thus available energy capture are found further from shore, particularly at ocean depths greater than 60 m.127 These attributes, combined with their proximity to major coastal cities and energy consumers,128 are why, in our carbon-stressed world, offshore wind requires serious consideration and prompt implementation. As demonstrated in the following pages, however, the maze of federal and state regulatory requirements facing renewable energy projects in general and offshore wind in particular, is especially burdensome.129 These requirements undermine the fundamental goal of significantly increasing reliance on emission-free renewable energy sources and, unless substantially revised, will effectively preclude any meaningful efforts to mitigate the many damaging human and economic impacts of climate change.


Pg. 15

Impact Extension – Affordable energy is a human right

[ ]

[ ] Affordable energy is a human right – it is a prerequisite to clean water, food, medicine and education. Tully, Fellow at the Economic and Social Research Council, 2006 (Stephen, “The Human Right to Access Electricity,” The Electricity Journal, 19:3, April, ScienceDirect) There are several reasons why the rationale underpinning human rights justifies the inclusion of electricity access. First and foremost, a human¶ rights orientation formally recognizes and operationalizes basic needs. Energy has become generally accepted as a basic need akin to water or food which further conditions access to other essential services such as sanitation, healthcare and education. For example, the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) observed that ‘‘energy is central to the¶ satisfaction of basic nutrition and health needs.’’12¶ Electricity access in particular has become virtually essential to contemporary human survival. Electricity cooks food, powers household appliances, supports a healthy temperature (heating or air conditioning), provides clean water (by powering pumps or desalination treatment), and enables proper health care (refrigerated vaccines, operating theatres, life support systems, electroshock therapy, emergency treatment, or intensive care). Electricity enables agricultural production, processing, and marketing (thereby ensuring food security), provides educational aids (computers, printers and photocopiers), encourages social cohesion (participation in cultural productions, entertainment, or recreation) and generates income-earning opportunities.


Pg. 16

Answers to: Renewable energy advances fuel poverty

[ ]

[ ] Wind will be affordable in the long term once start-up costs have been covered – government subsidies will ensure price increases are modest in the short term. Taylor, Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, 2013 (Phil, Reporter, U.S. Investment Could Make Turbines Cost-Competitive by 2030 – Report, online: http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=4996) The cost of offshore wind could compete with conventional and alternative renewable energy sources by 2030 if the United States is willing to invest $18 billion to $52 billion, according to a new report commissioned by offshore wind advocates.¶ The Brattle Group Inc. study found that such an investment would produce “modest” increases in consumers’ monthly energy bills and that investments in the technology would help diversify the country’s energy portfolio.¶ “In essence, the cost of scaling up offshore wind looks like a reasonable insurance premium against unexpectedly higher costs under a ‘one technology’ strategy,” the report says. “At a minimum, some initial support for scaling up offshore wind energy makes sense.”¶ The report, commissioned by the Center for American Progress, Clean Energy States Alliance, Sierra Club and U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative, was released yesterday as a bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced legislation that would subsidize the first few thousand megawatts of offshore wind in U.S. waters (E&E Daily, Feb. 28).¶ Offshore wind is expected to cost about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2016, far higher than onshore wind farms or conventional fossil fuels, according to federal economists. In part, that’s because there is no established supply chain in the United States for offshore wind, and some equipment and ships must be imported from Europe. Installing turbines in the ocean is also more costly, and there is currently no transmission to carry the power to market.¶ The Brattle study found that with as little as $18 billion over the next two decades, the power source could reach “grid parity” with fossil fuels with “only a minor impact on electricity rates.”¶ If spread across the country, those rates would amount to 25 cents to $2.08 per month. If localized to coastal ratepayers — mostly on the East Coast and Great Lakes — it would cost between 51 cents and $4.29.¶ “Given the fact that at present the portion of household consumption spent on electricity and gas is at a 50-year low, we believe such costs are an acceptable price to pay in exchange for [creating] the option of another cost-competitive power generation technology,” said the report, which was authored by Jurgen Weiss, Mark Sarro and Mark Berkman.¶ The investment would be comparable to the support other energy sources have received in the past, the report notes.


Pg. 17

Answers to: Wind energy is more expensive than alternatives

[ ]

[ ] Gas prices are subject to supply disruptions and shocks – wind is the only fuel source in existence that can offer a stable price. Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast Alliance, 2010 (Jacqueline, “Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,” Oceana Report, September, Online: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf) Offshore wind energy would reduce the financial risks associated with fossil fuel energy production. For example, natural gas and oil, both used in electricity generation in the United States, have highly volatile prices. Prices in the United States can be affected by hurricanes that limit oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, or geopolitical conflicts, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Oil prices are also affected by market speculation, which artificially drives the price higher. Like other renewable energy technologies, offshore wind power is insulated from fuel price volatility since its fuel, the wind, is free. The major costs associated with offshore wind farms, like most renewable energy projects, are set-up costs, from purchasing the parts and installing them. Since operation and maintenance costs are relatively low compared to the upfront costs, offshore wind energy costs can be estimated over the 20-30 year lifespan of the turbines, and energy prices tend to remain more constant for decades.¶


Pg. 18

Answers to: Wind energy is more expensive than alternatives

[ ]

[ ] Recent studies prove wind will cost about the same as existing fuels – that’s before accounting for the social costs of pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Stirling, reporter, 2014 (Diane, “Wind power cost competitive with natural gas, study finds,” Phys.org, March 27, Online: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-power-competitive-natural-gas.html) The costs of using wind energy and natural gas for electricity are virtually equal when accounting for the full private and social costs of each, making wind a competitive energy source for the United States, according to a new study on the federal tax credit for wind energy.¶ Just released by researchers at Syracuse University and the University of California, the analysis shows that wind energy comes within .35 cents per kWh when levelized over the 20-year life of a typical wind contract, compared on an equivalent basis to the full costs for natural gas-fired energy, according to Jason Dedrick, associate professor at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies (iSchool).¶ "The true cost of electricity from wind power and natural gas are effectively indistinguishable, yet because the cost of carbon emissions is not included in the market price of gas, wind has not been a competitive form of energy use in most of the United States, without government pricingsupport," Dedrick said.¶ The analysis starts from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of the lifetime "levelized" cost of electricity from a new wind farm, and also from an advanced combined cycle gas plant. The analysis develops a new metric that incorporates long-term factors which are not included in the DOE numbers. Accordingly, the study also reveals that the recently-expired Production Tax Credit for wind makes up for the lack of any mechanism to make fossil fuel generators pay for the cost of carbon emissions, Dedrick noted.


Pg. 19

Answers to: Energy efficient housing is the only way to solve

[ ]

[ ] Energy efficiency programs have multiple flaws – only fuel price reduction would reach all homes. East Lothian Department of Housing, 2008 (East Lothian Council, “Fuel Poverty Strategy,” Online: http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1871/fuel_poverty_strategy) Criticisms have been made of the effectiveness of energy efficiency programmes in reducing fuel poverty. ¶ For example there is no prioritisation of households via the EEC and Warm Deal and central heating initiatives based on measured risk of fuel poverty. This could result in fuel poor households living in hard to treat properties being left without support to carry out the expensive measures required to remove them from fuel poverty, such as installation of renewable energy heating systems, solid wall insulation and the extension of mains gas supply.¶ In addition to this there will be technical difficulties in improving the energy efficiency of some older stone-built properties, which are unlikely to be replaced as a result of their architectural merits. This could impact on continued fuel poverty risk for residents of these properties.


Pg. 20

Advantage Add-on: Jobs/Manufacturing (1/2)

A. The US manufacturing sector is still recovering from the great recession Musial and Ram, Scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010 (Walter and Bonnie, “Large Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers,” NREL Report, September, Online: http://usoffshorewind.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NREL-large-offshore-wind-us.pdf) The nation is also recovering from the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression. Economists are raising concerns about a return to economic slowdown (gross domestic product [GDP] growth fell from 3.7% in the first quarter of 2010 to 2.4% in the second quarter of 2010) and the prospect of a jobless recovery (as of this writing, the unemployment rate is at 9.5%, down just 0.6 percentage points from its high of 10.1% in October 2009; see Bureau of Economic Analysis 2010; Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). In addition, the U.S. manufacturing sector, traditionally a source of economic strength, has been buffeted by the outsourcing of production operations overseas and, more recently, the recession. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the manufacturing industry as a whole lost more than 4.1 million jobs between 1998 and 2008 and suggest that the sector will lose an additional 1.2 million jobs by 2018 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009). A continued decline in manufacturing activity will likely increase our nation’s trade deficit; eliminate stable, high-wage jobs for skilled domestic workers; and generally reduce the potential for robust economic growth. Offshore wind has the potential to address all three issues: the energy supply, the environment, and the economy. Offshore wind uses the vast renewable wind resources adjacent to the ocean perimeter of the United States, which are domestic, indigenous, inexhaustible energy supplies in close proximity to our urban energy load centers. Offshore wind turbines can convert the strong ocean winds into clean, renewable power with no harmful emissions. Offshore wind has the potential to contribute significantly to the revitalization of the U.S. manufacturing sector, which will help strengthen both the economies of coastal states and the U.S. economy as a whole.


Pg. 21

Advantage Add-on: Jobs/Manufacturing (2/2)

B. Expanded offshore wind production would create millions of jobs Mausolf, JD from University of Detroit School of Law, 2012 (Ashlyn, “Clearing the Regulatory Hurdles and Promoting Offshore Wind Development in Michigan,” University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, Winter, 89:223, Online: http://www.law.udmercy.edu/udm/images/lawreview/v89/Mausolf.PS.pdf) The wind industry has already demonstrated its ability to provide jobs to workers in the United States.77 The wind industry added 400 manufacturing plants in the United States over the last five years.78 The number of people the wind industry employs surpassed the number of workers employed by the coal industry in 2008.79 Furthermore, “[i]n February 2011, a Michigan Public Service Commission analysis of Michigan’s Renewable Energy Standard concluded that the cost of building a new coal facility in Michigan was $133 per megawatt hour while the average cost of building a new wind farm was $101.78 per MWh.”80¶ President Barack Obama, who has shown his commitment to subsidizing alternative energy sources, “predicted that if the United States ‘fully pursues [the nation’s] potential for wind energy on land and offshore,’ wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030.”81 National Renewable Energy Laboratory analysis and extrapolation of European studies estimate that “offshore wind would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters.”82 According to the Departments of the Interior and Energy, “Installing 54 GW of offshore wind capacity in U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs and would require more than 1.1 million job-years to manufacture and install the turbines.”83 Of course, the rise of the wind industry will also create a larger need for jobs in associated¶ professions like accounting, law, and electrical manufacturing.84 Michigan cannot afford to turn down this opportunity for growth.


Pg. 22

Answers to: Wind industry jobs are temporary

[ ]

[ ] Expanded offshore wind would stabilize US economy during periods of unstable prices – and provide stable jobs Rigano, Hofstra University JD Candidate, 2012 (Gregory, “The Solution to the United States’ Energy Troubles Is Blowing in the Wind,” Hofstra Law Review, 39:201, Summer, Online: http://www.hofstralawreview.org/2012/05/08/the-solution-to-the-united-states-energy-troubles-is-blowing-in-the-wind/) Wind is an environmentally-friendly source of power that does not give off any harmful emissions, unlike traditional fuel sources that produce carbon dioxide.155 Offshore wind energy, an abundant, local source of electricity, is one of the most rapidly developing sources of renewable energy on the planet.156 It is a dependable and effective way¶ of producing electricity.157 Offshore wind is an efficient source of renewable energy because wind blows strong and consistently off the coasts, especially in the afternoons, which is the time of day when people are using the most electricity.158 The development of the wind energy industry not only affects the environment positively, but it also has a positive effect on the economy.159 Offshore wind, as a renewable source of energy, would make the United States significantly less susceptible to the price shocks of oil. Furthermore, it would create opportunities for employment160 while keeping money in the United States that would otherwise be sent overseas for oil, which would directly benefit the U.S. gross domestic product and gross national product.161¶ According to Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY), the current state of the economy must be transformed, as forty percent of jobs are extinct.162 He states that in the past, many sources of employment were products of an overvalued economy that has now burst, reverting to the market’s true form.163 Congressman Israel has declared that the next generation of employment will be in renewable energy, especially in the form of wind.164 Moreover, the wind power industry has a profound effect on national security,165 as it allows for significantly fewer relations with unstable countries, from which the United States currently imports fossil fuels.166¶ In 2005, onshore wind energy led to the production of over 10,000 megawatts, which is more than enough electricity to support over two million households in the United States.167 The DOE estimates that wind energy, if generated both onshore and offshore, has the potential to be responsible for twenty percent of the United States’ power supply by 2030.168 The DOE opined that “[t]he U.S. has enough wind resources to generate electricity for every home and business in the nation.”169 However, despite the potential wind power has to offer, it is currently generating a minimal amount of our nation’s energy.170 The reason is not from lack of effort, but from a combination of poor regulatory guidance from Congress and local opposition to offshore wind farms.171 The¶ United States must diversify its energy portfolio to protect the economy, the environment, and perhaps most importantly, the American peoples’ reaction to a world of depleted oil reserves. We must wean ourselves off of oil so that when oil becomes scarce, the effects, both domestically and globally, will be minimal.


Pg. 23

Answers to: Wind industry jobs aren’t cost effective

[ ]

[ ] Wind industry jobs are cost-effective compared to other energy sectors – they’re permanent and offer more jobs per megawatt of energy produced. Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast Alliance, 2010 (Jacqueline, “Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,” Oceana Report, September, Online: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf) According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas sectors of the United States directly employ 2.1 million people. API asserts that by opening up previously protected offshore areas (including the entire East and West Coasts), the natural gas and oil industry would create 39,079 jobs in 2030. The permanence of these jobs is in question, since oil and gas supplies are finite, unlike renewable sources.¶ The United Kingdom expects to create between 1 and 1.7 full-time equivalent jobs for each megawatt of offshore wind power installed.89 If only 127 gigawatts of offshore wind farms are installed in the United States by 2030, similar to Europe’s ambitious plan,90 this could create between 133,000 and 212,000 permanent American jobs annually. Offshore wind would create about three times as many jobs as would the offshore oil and gas industries. This comparison is consistent with studies conducted by the PERI Institute, which show a 3-to-1 ratio between jobs created by clean energy versus those created by fossil fuel industries91.¶ The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that currently in the United States, 85,000 people are employed by the wind industry.92 In Europe, 19,000 people are already employed in the offshore wind industry.93 Installing, operating and maintaining offshore wind farms employ more people per megawatt of capacity installed than onshore wind power.94


Pg. 24

Answers to: No solvency – delays in implementation

[ ]

[ ] Even if there are delays, wind energy development would be fast enough to deal with climate change – and trying to make fossil fuels efficient or develop other renewable energy sources would take longer. Barbosa et al., Professor of Engineering at the University of Portugal, 2009 (Maciel, Luis Ferreira, Torres Farinha, Inácio Fonsec, Viriato Marques, and António Simões, “Integrating Wind Power energy into electric grids an environmental issue”, Conference on Energy Planning, Energy Savings, Environmental Education, Online: www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2009/lalaguna/EPREWA/EPREWA15.pdf) The options for making major emissions reductions in the power sector between now and 2020 are basically three: energy efficiency and conservation; fuel switching from coal to gas; and renewable energy, primarily wind power. This power does not emit any climate change inducing carbon dioxide nor other air pollutants which are polluting the major cities of the world and costing billions in additional health costs and infrastructure damage.¶ While developments in 2008 show that the sector is well on track to meeting this target, a strong global signal from governments is needed to show that they are serious about moving away from fossil fuels and protecting the climate. It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to a low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system. Depending on the efficiency measures implemented, by 2030 world energy needs are predicated to be between 30 and 60% higher than current levels. This sharp increase in world energy demand will require significant investment in new power generating capacity and grid infrastructure, especially emerging economies such as India and China.¶ Just as energy demand continues to increase, supplies of the main fossil fuels used in power generation are becoming more expensive and more difficult to extract. One result is that some of the major economies of the world are increasingly relying on imported fuel at unpredictable cost, sometimes from regions of the world where conflict and political instability threaten the security of that supply. In contrast to the uncertainties surrounding supplies of conventional fuels, and volatile prices, wind energy is a massive indigenous power source which is permanently available in virtually every country in the world. There are no fuel costs, no geopolitical risk and no supply dependence on imported fuels from politically unstable regions. Every kilowatt/hour generated by wind power has the potential to displace fossil fuel imports, improving both security of supply and the national balance of payments, which is not only an issue for the United States which sends more than half a trillion dollars a year out of the country to pay its oil bill. This is an even larger issue for poor countries in Africa, Asia and South America whose economies have been devastated by recent oil price hikes.¶ Wind power also has the advantage that it can be deployed faster than other energy supply technologies. Even large offshore wind farms, which require a greater level of infrastructure and grid network connection, can be installed from start to finish in less than two years. This compares with the much longer timescale for conventional power stations such as nuclear reactors.


Pg. 25

Answers to: No solvency – delays (technology/regulations)

[ ]

[ ] Their evidence doesn’t assume specific policies taken by the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior to improve offshore wind technology and reduce regulatory red tape. Sciutto, reporter for Talking Points Memo, 2011 (Alex, “Energy, Interior To Foster Offshore Wind Development In New Project,” Talking Points Memo, Online: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/idealab/energy-interior-to-foster-offshore-wind-development-in-new-project) The Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior this week announced the first-ever inter-agency plan to rapidly develop massive offshore wind farms. The plan is designed to encourage private industry to develop offshore wind farms -- and to produce enough energy to contribute to the Administration's goal of generating 80% of the nation's electricity from clean sources by 2035. If the plans come to fruition, the United States could see thousands of square nautical miles of ocean off the coast of the eastern United States developed into wind farms in the coming decade.¶

"The primary benefit of close collaboration between the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior is to demonstrate the strong commitment of the federal government to developing the nation's offshore wind energy resources in a responsible manner," said Tom Welch, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy.¶ At a joint press conference announcing the initiative earlier this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar each announced their respective agencies' specific new programs to help foster private development.¶ Chu announced that Energy would dedicate $25 million to fund research to improve offshore wind technology. The "DOE will support the development of innovative wind turbine design tools and hardware to provide the foundation for a cost-competitive and world-class offshore wind industry in the United States," explained a joint press release. The money will go to projects like the development of open-source computational tools for offshore turbines and studies for how best to set-up the systems that will run a large-scale offshore wind farm.¶ The DOE also announced it would invest in economic studies on how to best sell wind energy once it gets to land as well as a $7.5 million investment in developing the next generation individual wind turbines that convert the wind into energy.¶ At the press conference, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the specific areas in the Delaware, Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey coasts that will become the first locations of Interior's "Smart from the Start" initiative, unveiled this past November, to streamline some of the bureaucratic hurdles that have turned the development of a single offshore wind farm into a decade-long headache of red tape.


Pg. 26

Answers to: No solvency – delays (infrastructure)

[ ]

[ ] Construction is already underway on the infrastructure we need to assemble offshore wind turbines – it won’t cause substantial delays. Morris, correspondent and journalist for NPR, 2014 (Brian, “Marine Commerce Terminal Will Serve Offshore Wind Industry,” Cape and Islands NPR, March 20, Online: http://capeandislands.org/post/marine-commerce-terminal-will-serve-offshore-wind-industry) With cleanup complete, workers are focusing on building and reinforcing the terminal itself. The facility mostly will assemble and deploy offshore wind turbine components. And the first customer is expected to be Cape Wind. Each of Cape Wind’s 130 turbines will have 3 blades, each measuring about 160 feet.¶ “So, a staggeringly long blade, all of which will be deployed and assembled here on this facility,” said White.¶ Eric Hines of the Clean Energy Center said the terminal is designed to handle turbine components like Cape Wind, but it’s also purposely versatile, able to support high-volume bulk and container shipping, industrial equipment, and large specialty marine cargo - because it’s not just the wind industry that requires such a large capacity operation.¶ “All the components and all of the vessels are getting larger and larger. They’re also getting heavier. And the shipping industry has to be able to be nimble enough with these very large components to move them around in ways that suit a particular project,” Hines said.¶ The US is years behind its European renewable energy counterparts. But according to Bill White, offshore wind farms will inevitably become part of the landscape.¶ “The United States has been a little bit slow in picking this opportunity up. Obviously, Cape Wind has had had its challenges which we’re all aware of, but I think, usually, once America kinda moves toward something and figures it out, they do it in a big way. And I actually do believe, once these projects actually become real, it’s gonna be a game-changer,” White said.¶ When it comes online next year, the Marine Commerce Terminal will be the first of its kind in the nation. The hope among its supporters is that it will revitalize a portion of New Bedford harbor. More than that, that it will put in place some of the infrastructure and technology needed for the East Coast’s emerging offshore wind industry.


Pg. 27

Answers to: Regulatory delays deter investors

[ ]

[ ] Regulatory hurdles are shrinking as government agencies start to cooperate – lack of investment is caused by a lack of stable government support in the form of tax breaks. Sims, Senior Energy Project Finance Specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013 (Douglass, “Fulfilling the Promise of U.S. Offshore Wind,” NRDC Issue Paper, February, Online: http://www.nrdc.org/business/files/offshore-wind-investment.pdf) Despite these benefits, today, exactly zero MW of offshore wind capacity are installed or even under construction in the United States, with only three projects in advanced stages¶ of development: Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound (468 MW ), Deepwater Wind off Block Island, Rhode Island (30 MW ), and Fishermen’s Energy near Atlantic City, New Jersey (25 MW ). The first has long-term supply contracts, called Power¶ Purchase Agreements (PPAs), for approximately 75 percent of its energy, the second has a PPA for all of its output, and the third is awaiting a decision from the New Jersey Board¶ of Public Utilities on whether the project should be awarded Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificates (ORECs) under New Jersey’s centralized procurement program.¶

Compare this with the rest of the world, particularly in Europe, where offshore wind has been spinning for more than 20 years. According to the European Wind Energy Association, by the end of 2012, Europe had an installed capacity of¶ 4,995 MW distributed among 55 offshore wind farms in 10 countries, including 1,165 MW of capacity installed in 2012 alone.4 In Asia, China was forecast to have commissioned approximately 295 MW of offshore wind by year end 2012, and Japan has deployed demonstration turbines.5 In sum, offshore wind is becoming increasingly mainstream and mature in other countries.¶ So, what is going wrong? Why is investment flowing in other places but not here? Enormous improvements have been made on siting and permitting, such that they are not the main bottlenecks. As discussed in detail in the National Wildlife Federation’s recent report on offshore wind,¶ these impediments are being overcome as overlapping governmental entities have begun working together.6 But there remain fundamental challenges ahead. The underlying limiting factor for offshore wind, a factor not found in places where the sector has advanced, is that the basic economic and financial conditions for offshore wind success are not in place. Without them, investors are not comfortable providing capital for these projects, and the sector inevitably will struggle to get off the ground.


Pg. 28

Other industries use rare earth minerals

[ ]

[ ] Rare earth mineral extraction is inevitable – other industries like hybrid cars use them. Gorman, Staff Writer for Reuters, 2009 (Steve, As Hybrid Cars Gobble Rare Metals, Shortage Looms, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/31/us-mining-toyota-idUSTRE57U02B20090831) The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earthmetals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.¶ That makes Toyota's market-leading gasoline-electric hybrid car and other similar vehicles vulnerable to a supply crunch predicted by experts as China, the world's dominant rare earths producer, limits exports while global demand swells.¶ Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012.¶ Among the rare earths that would be most affected in a shortage is neodymium, the key component of an alloy used to make the high-power, lightweight magnets for electric motors of hybrid cars, such as the Prius, Honda Insight and Ford Focus, as well as in generators for wind turbines.¶ Close cousins terbium and dysprosium are added in smaller amounts to the alloy to preserve neodymium's magnetic properties at high temperatures. Yet another rare earth metal, lanthanum, is a major ingredient for hybrid car batteries.¶ Production of both hybrids cars and wind turbines is expected to climb sharply amid the clamor for cleaner transportation and energy alternatives that reduce dependence on fossil fuels blamed for global climate change.

http://www.reuters.com/finance/commodities/metals?lc=int_mb_1001

http://www.reuters.com/places/china?lc=int_mb_1001

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=F&lc=int_mb_1001


Pg. 29

No supply shortage – other countries produce rare earth minerals

[ ]

[ ] China doesn’t monopolize rare-earth elements- they don’t have much Parthemore, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, 2011 (Christine, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” Center for a New American Security, Online: http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf) Looking at the minerals examined in this report, in the past decade the most severe case of disruptions with national security implications involved rare earth elements, which are not particularly concentrated geographically. At least eight countries have known reserves, and unknown reserves are expected to be high. The media often refers to China as dominating the rare earths market because it produces and exports almost all of current world supplies, but it possesses only about half of known world reserves – not a terribly high concentration. 27 The loss of a single major supplier such as China may therefore increase the costs of rare earths. However, it may not affect their longterm availability, as eventually supplies will be developed elsewhere.


Pg. 30

Wind is cleaner than fossil fuels

[ ]

[ ] Fossil fuels destroying the environment – impacts of wind energy production are limited to small areas and aren’t long-lasting. Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast Alliance, 2010 (Jacqueline, “Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,” Oceana Report, September, Online: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf) There’s never been a wind blowout. No wind meltdowns. Not a single wind-mining disaster. No ground water contamination from wind fracking. No clean up needed from a wind spill. The point is simple—the environmental impacts of wind power are, quite simply, minuscule when compared to the impacts and risks of other forms of energy production, particularly oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. And wind, unlike fossil fuels, does not cause climate change or acidification of the oceans.¶ This report is focused primarily on the direct economic comparison of wind versus oil and natural gas as an energy source. But direct costs paid by consumers are not the only costs associated with different forms of energy generation. Some of those costs are obvious—the Deepwater Drilling Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to have costs in the tens of billions—while some are much less obvious. In addition to the increasingly obvious consequences of climate change, fossil fuels contribute to air pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Electricity generation from these fuels is responsible for the consumption of over a trillion gallons a year of increasingly scarce and valuable water.¶ Offshore wind has none of these impacts. In fact, the “fuel” has no impacts whatsoever. Overall, most of the negative effects of constructing wind turbines in a marine environment are temporary and localized. Construction and installation appear to be the most disruptive activities associated with offshore wind farm development.44 Driving monopiles into the seabed (similar to planting a stake in the ground) is noisy and disruptive to sediments.45 Fortunately, practices to minimize disturbance during construction are available (see “Doing Offshore Wind Right” section below).¶ In short, the wind is a fuel that, unlike fossil fuels and nuclear power, is cost free in every sense. There are no costs to drill, dig, mine, transport or dispose of wind. There are no costs to using wind—no smog, no acid rain, no climate change, no ocean acidification. In comparison to the environmental costs of these traditional forms of energy, offshore wind energy is indeed “free as the wind.”


Pg. 31

Offshore rigs protect the environment

[ ]

[ ] Offshore wind farms protect ocean species by providing shelter from fishing and reducing CO2 emissions. Casy, Senior Communications Officer at European Wind Energy Association, 2012 (Zoe, “Offshore wind farms benefit sealife, says study,” European Wind Energy Association Blog, December, Online: http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/12/offshore-wind-farms-benefit-sealife-says-study/) Offshore wind farms can create a host of benefits for the local marine environment, as well as combatting climate change, a new study by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University has found.¶

The Marine Institute found that wind farms provide shelter to fish species since sea bottom trawling is often forbidden inside a wind farm, and it found that turbine support structures can create artificial reefs for some species.¶ A separate study at the Nysted offshore wind farm in Denmark confirmed this finding by saying that artificial reefs provided favourable growth conditions for blue mussels and crab species. A study on the Thanet offshore wind farm in the UK found that some species like cod shelter inside the wind farm.¶ One high-profile issue covered by the Marine Institute study was that of organisms colliding with offshore wind turbines. The study, backed-up by a number of previous studies, found that many bird species fly low over the water, avoiding collision with wind turbine blades. It also found that some species, such as Eider ducks, do modify their courses slightly to avoid offshore turbines.¶ When it comes to noise, the study found “no significant impact on behaviour or populations.” It noted that a separate study in the Netherlands found more porpoise clicks inside a Dutch wind farm than outside it “perhaps exploiting the higher fish densities found”.¶ The study also said that offshore wind power and other marine renewable energies should be rolled out rapidly in order to combat the threats to marine biodiversity, food production and economies posed by climate change.¶ “It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean acidification, global warming and climatic changes,” the study published said.¶

EWEA forecasts that 40 GW of offshore wind capacity will be online in European seas by 2020 which will offset 102 million tonnes of CO2 every year. By 2030, the expected 150 GW of offshore capacity will offset 315 million tonnes of CO2 annually – that’s a significant contribution to the effort to cut carbon.¶ “It is clear that the marine environment is already being damaged by the increasingly apparent impacts of climate change; however it is not too late to make a difference to avoid more extreme impacts,” the study said.¶ “If you bring all these studies together they all point to a similar conclusion: offshore wind farms have a positive impact on the marine environment in several ways,” said Angeliki Koulouri, Research Officer at EWEA. “First they contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions, the major threat to biodiversity, second, they provide regeneration areas for fish and benthic populations,” she added.


Pg. 32

Climate change outweighs species loss

[ ]

[ ] This argument misses the forest for the trees – you should prioritize climate change over small ecological concerns Zeller, Journalism Fellow at MIT, 2013 (Tom, Cape Wind: Regulation, Litigation And The Struggle To Develop Offshore Wind Power In The U.S.,” Huffington Post, March 1, Online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/23/cape-wind-regulation-liti_n_2736008.html) But even those calling for infrastructure permitting reform often say the problem isn't necessarily environmental law as written, but the way in which it is implemented. "Proposals for environmental streamlining originating in Congress often overlook opportunities to overhaul policies and procedures within the current legal framework for environmental review," said Petra Todorovich, director of RPA's America 2050 program, in a statement accompanying the "Getting Infrastructure Going" report. "Contrary to current thinking, our study found that more federal involvement, not less, tends to speed up environmental reviews of major projects."¶ Whatever the solution, it will need to be found quickly if the nation hopes to address the growing climate crisis in a serious way. In its 2011 climate assessment, the National Research Council stated that the nation must cut greenhouse emissions by 80 percent by 2050 merely to stabilize the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The electricity sector accounts for a third of such emissions, and most experts believe the necessary reductions simply cannot be achieved without a swift transition to cleaner sources of power.¶ "Our existing environmental laws and regulatory processes no longer achieve their underlying goals of long-term ecosystem conservation," wrote Thaler, the law professor at the University of Maine. "To the contrary, these laws and regulations are supporting a system with increasing greenhouse gas emissions that is actually costing trillions of dollars.


Pg. 33

Nuclear power industry already declining

[ ]

[ ] Nuclear industry is declining now – multiple causes besides wind like a freeze on reactor licenses. Douglass, writer for InsideClimate News, 2013 (Elizabeth, First U.S. Nuclear Power Closures in 15 Years Signal Wider Problems for Industry, online: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130924/first-us-nuclear-power-closures-15-years-signal-wider-problems-industry) A string of plant closures, project cancellations and other setbacks has raised new doubts about the future of nuclear power in the United States, but there's disagreement about whether the retrenchment will be limited and temporary or the beginning of a broad and permanent decline. Renewed safety concerns and reinvigorated local opposition have played a role in the industry's recent troubles. But the most potent foe—and the primary force behind the spate of closures and abandoned projects—is economic. The industry's run of bad news includes: -The early closure of four nuclear power plants. Two of the plants, the Vermont Yankee reactor and Wisconsin's Kewaunee reactor, were felled by stiff competition. One plant, San Onofre in California, was shuttered amid safety concerns and severely damaged steam generators. And the other, Florida'sCrystal River, was done in by structural damage. - An announcement that Électricité de France SA, the world's largest nuclear plant operator, would withdraw from its joint venture with Exelon Corp. The venture's three nuclear plants—Calvert Cliffs in Maryland and New York's R.E. Ginna and Nine Mile Point—will be run by Exelon. The French company had invested billions of dollars to expand into the United States.¶ - Duke Energy Corp.'s decision to shelve plans for two reactors in Levy County, Fla. (in addition to permanently closing Crystal River).¶ - A June 2012 court ruling that blocked the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing new reactor licenses or renewals until it sufficiently assesses the risks of storing spent radioactive fuel at nuclear plant sites. ¶ - The cancellation this year of at least five projects that would have boosted the power output of existing reactors.¶ - Long delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns for ongoing construction of new reactors in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. The blows to nuclear power's prospects have come on many fronts, but it was the surprising spurt of plant closures that laid bare the industry's worsening plight. The plant shutdowns are the first to hit the U.S. nuclear power market in 15 years, and the retirements don't bode well for many of the nation's 99 remaining power reactors. Analysts say economic woes make at least 10 other plants vulnerable enough to follow suit.

http://www.entergy.com/News_Room/newsrelease.aspx?NR_ID=2769

http://dom.mediaroom.com/2013-05-07-Dominion-Shuts-Down-Kewaunee-Power-Station-Permanently

http://www.songscommunity.com/news2013/news060713.asp

http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2013020501.asp

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/edf-results-idINL6N0G00MZ20130730

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/edf-results-idINL6N0G00MZ20130730

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-08/nuclear-waste-storage-rules-thrown-out-by-u-s-court.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-08/nuclear-waste-storage-rules-thrown-out-by-u-s-court.html

https://forms.nrc.gov/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cooper--entergy-surrender-on-vermont-yankee-reactor-is-latest-evidence-of-rapid-fire-downsizing-of-nuclear-power-in-us-221329901.html


Pg. 34

Grid is reliable – shocks don’t cause collapse

[ ]

[ ] The US power grid is reliable – it can adapt to changes in energy production to avoid catastrophic outages. Barrett, The Lexington Institute, 2012 (Michael, Ensuring the Resiliance of the U.S. Electrical Grid – Part II: Managing the Chaos – and Costs – of Shared Risks, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ensuring-the-resilience-of-the-u-s-electrical-grid-part-ii-managing-the-chaos-and-costs-of-shared-risks/) The good news regarding the ability of the electrical system to absorb and recover from impacts is that for a variety of routine disruptions such as thunderstorms, minor sub- station failures, and the like our numerous economic and regulatory imperatives drive fairly resilient operations for much of the electrical power industry. In fact, the entire system is designed to meet a “3 nines” reliability standard, which translates to being 99.97% reliable.11 This overall systemic resilience has evolved over time because industry participants have economic incentives to keep the system operating due to the regulations governing their operating agreements. For example, even if a local generation or transmission disruption occurs most power companies still have to provide power even if it means buying electricity at current market rates – even though those rates can spike precipitously during those same adverse events. As a result, stable performance is an economic imperative because failure to keep the system operating can cost a tremendous amount of revenue to a firm. Power companies also have inherent incentives to implement process and structural solutions that minimize downtime following an adverse event, for in addition to regulatory concerns downtime means electricity is not being used and thus further lost revenues. The power companies fall under federal and state regulatory oversight for the operation of generating facilities and transmission systems, and the rates that local utilities are allowed to charge is generally regulated by state agencies.12 This bifurcation of locally set rates but federally and state-mandated performance measures can cause tensions with regard to long term investments because the regulatory oversight prevents free market investments that can be recouped under normal financial operations such as freely-floating prices.¶ Nonetheless, the interplay between regulators and industry works in terms of meeting the routine decisions about investments that need to be addressed, and as a result of these drivers the electricity segment has proven generally highly resilient under most scenarios because its primary components can withstand massive localized degradation without necessarily impacting the rest of the system.


Pg. 35

Offshore wind increases grid reliability

[ ]

[ ] Wind farms can change their output to fit national power needs – makes the power grid more stable. LaMonica, Greentech Media, 2014 (Martin, Study: How wind energy can improve grid reliability, online: http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/01/28/study-how-wind-energy-can-improve-grid-reliability/) Wind energy suffers from an image problem: because it’s intermittent, wind complicates the grid’s operation and requires fossil fuel power plants for backup. But wind farms could actually improve power reliability in an economic way, according to a recent study.¶ In an analysis, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) showed that wind farms can quickly change their output to provide frequency regulation, a service grid operators rely on to ensure reliable power delivery. The finding could change how regulators, grid operators and wind-farm owners view wind energy.¶ Today, natural gas power plants are often used for frequency regulation. They ramp up output to maintain a balance between power supply and demand, which keeps the grid’s frequency signal stable.¶ Wind turbines can perform the same function by lowering their output, according to NREL wind analyst and study co-author Erik Ela. By changing the pitch of their blades slightly, wind turbines can make second-by-second curtailments that allow grid operators to keep the power supply and demand in balance, he said.¶ Normally, a wind farm operator would not want to curtail a wind farm, since they earn money based on how many megawatts-hours are sold. And because the fuel is free, wind power is typically tapped before other forms of power generation in wholesale energy markets. But in certain situations, a wind farm can earn more money by providing frequency regulation services, said Ela.¶ “Because the grid values these services so much, [wind farms] can actually earn more money by curtailing and providing services than if they’re providing energy,” he said.¶ For example, there are times in the middle of the night when wholesale energy prices are negative because there is excess wind power. At those times, frequency regulation services would be more valuable than providing energy.

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2014/7301.html


Pg. 36

Nuclear power bad – Generic

[ ]

[ ] Nuclear power is extremely dangerous – unlike wind, it is an inherently destructive technology with side effects that can’t be reversed. Cohen, Executive Director of Columbia University's Earth Institute, 2013 (Steven, “No Nukes,” Huffington Post, April 8, Online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/no-nukes_b_3036367.html) The problem with nuclear power is that we do not know how to manage it effectively, and the risks of mismanagement are irreversible. Our general approach to the use of new technology has always been to use it first and ask questions later. Unlike the way we regulate drugs, we do not follow the precautionary principle when introducing a new method of production. Before we introduce a new drug we test it on animals and eventually on people to learn its main effects and side effects. That is how we adhere to the precautionary principle. When we introduce new technology for production, we are all like the canary they used to lower down in a cage to test for gas in a coal mine. If the canary came back alive, there was no gas and you could send the miners down. If the canary came back dead, that means there's gas in the mine and it's too dangerous to work. When it comes to nuclear power, we are all canaries lowered into the mine.¶ Our arrogance as a species convinces us that we can somehow deal with the impacts of the toxics we have developed and introduced into the environment. Sometimes we can, and in some cases we have learned how to manage the technologies we have developed. Nuclear power is not one of those technologies. While we have a reasonable safety record on power generation, we have had little success with nuclear waste.¶ The problem with nuclear technology is that it was developed to be the first weapon of mass destruction. In the 1950's there was an effort to change the image of nuclear technology- with the "atoms for peace" program pushed by President Eisenhower. This was a well-intentioned, but failed effort to try to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Unfortunately the original goal of nuclear technology was to build in destruction and toxicity. Widespread radiation made the weapon more fearsome and effective. But the same element of the technology that made nuclear an awesome weapon, also made it a dangerous source of energy. In order to build a safe, non-toxic form of nuclear power, we need to start over again with a very different set of design parameters and objectives. Maybe some day we will do that, but right now that day seems a long way off.¶ Geothermal, solar, wind and hydropower are not without environmental impacts and risks. But those risks are not irreversible. With over seven billion people on the planet, we should assume that many human activities will damage the environment. Our goal should be to keep that damage to a minimum and make certain that as we learn more we can learn how to reduce, and even reverse, the damage we have done.


Pg. 37

Nuclear power bad – Risk of proliferation

[ ]

[ ] A successful transition to nuclear power would require a massive increase in the production and exchange of nuclear materials – this increases the risk that nuclear materials would fall into the wrong hands and be turned into weapons. Smith, professor of physics at the State University of New York at Cortland, 2006 (Brice, “Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change,” Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, Online: http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/downloads/reports/InsurmountableRisks_2006.pdf) While concerns over catastrophic accidents and long-term waste management have received more public attention, the largest single vulnerability associated with an expansion of nuclear power is likely to be its potential connection to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In order to fuel the number of nuclear plants envisioned under the global or steady- state growth scenarios, increases in the world’s uranium enrichment capacity of approximately two and half to six times would be required.996 Just one percent of the enrichment capacity required by the global growth scenario alone would be enough to supply the highly-enriched uranium for nearly 210 nuclear weapons every year.997 The risks from such an increase in enrichment capacity are such that even the authors of the MIT report concluded that “[n]uclear power should not expand unless the risk of proliferation from operation of the commercial nuclear fuel cycle is made acceptably small.”998¶ As discussed in Chapter Three, the proposals that have been put forth to try and reduce the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation are very unlikely to be successful in a world where the five acknowledged nuclear weapons states seek to retain their arsenals indefinitely. The institutionalization of a system in which some states are allowed to possess nuclear weapons while dictating intrusive inspections and restricting what activities other states may pursue is not likely to be sustainable. As summarized by Mohamed El Baradei¶ We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security -- indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.999¶ Without a concrete, verifiable program to irreversibly eliminate the tens of thousands of existing nuclear weapons, no nonproliferation strategy is likely to be successful no matter how strong it would otherwise be. As such, the link to nuclear weapons is likely to prove to be one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in any attempt to revive the nuclear power industry.


Pg. 38

Nuclear power bad – Target for terrorism

[ ]

[ ] Nuclear power plants are safe from terrorist attacks – they are well guarded and even if they were attacked, there would be no major radioactive fallout. Smith, professor of physics at the State University of New York at Cortland, 2006 (Brice, “Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change,” Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, Online: http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/downloads/reports/InsurmountableRisks_2006.pdf) In addition to its link to nuclear weapons proliferation, the potential for a catastrophic reactor accident or well coordinated terrorist attack to release a large amount of radiation adds to the unique dangers of nuclear power. Such a release could have extremely severe consequences for human health and the environment, would require very expensive cleanup and decontamination efforts, and would leave buildings and land dangerously contaminated well into the future. The CRAC-2 study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories estimated that a worst case accident at some of the existing nuclear plants in the U.S. could result in tens of thousands of prompt and long-term deaths and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.1000 Even if a reactor’s secondary containment was not breached, however, and there were not dangerously large offsite releases of radiation, a serious accident would still cost the utility a great deal due both to the loss of the reactor and the need to buy replacement power. As summarized by Peter Bradford, a former commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,¶

The abiding lesson that Three Mile Island taught Wall Street was that a group of N.R.C.-licensed reactor operators, as good as any others, could turn a $2 billion asset into a $1 billion cleanup job in about 90 minutes.1001


Pg. 39

Nuclear power bad – Radioactive waste

[ ]

[ ] A surge in nuclear power would result in a huge increase in radioactive waste – and there are no effective disposal methods. Smith, professor of physics at the State University of New York at Cortland, 2006 (Brice, “Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change,” Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, Online: http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/downloads/reports/InsurmountableRisks_2006.pdf) Finally, the difficulty of managing the radioactive wastes generated by the nuclear fuel cycle is one of the longest standing challenges accompanying the use of nuclear power. In addition to its high radiotoxicity, the existence of large quantities of weapons usable plutonium in the spent fuel complicates the waste management problem by raising concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation.1002 While the management of low- level waste will continue to pose a challenge, by far the largest concern regarding radioactive waste management is how to handle the spent nuclear fuel. Greatly complicating this task are the very long half-lives of some of the radionuclides present in this waste (for example plutonium- 239 – half-life of 24,000 years, technetium-99 – half-life of 212,000 years, cesium-135 – half-life of 2.3 million years, and iodine-129 – half- life of 15.7 million years).¶ Through 2050, the expansion of nuclear power under the global growth scenario would lead to nearly a doubling of the average rate at which spent fuel is currently generated with proportionally larger increases under the steady-state growth scenario. Assuming a constant growth rate for nuclear plant construction, and that Yucca Mountain itself was successfully licensed and built, a new repository with the capacity of Yucca Mountain would have to come online somewhere in the world every six years in order to handle the amount of waste that would be generated under the global growth scenario. For the steady state growth scenario a new Yucca Mountain sized repository would need to be opened every three years on average just to keep up with the waste being generated.1003¶ The characterization and siting of repositories rapidly enough to handle the volumes of waste that would be generated by a nuclear revival would be a very serious challenge. The site of the Yucca Mountain repository has been studied for more than two decades, and it has been the sole focus of the Department of Energy since 1987. However, despite this effort, and nearly $9 billion in expenditures, as yet no license application has been filed and a key element of the regulations governing the site has been struck down by the courts and re-issued in draft form. Adding to the uncertainty about the repository’s future is the fact that the draft standard proposed by the EPA in August 2005 would be the least protective¶ by far of any repository regulation anywhere in the world, and will therefore likely face future challenges.


Pg. 40

Answers to: Wind requires fossil fuel backup because it’s intermittent

[ ]

[ ] Wind is steady in the ocean – and strongest in warm weather when demand is highest. Huelsenbeck, marine scientist for the climate and energy campaign at Oceana, 2013 (Matt, “Offshore Wind Energy: The Coming Sea Change?,” Live Science, July, Online: http://www.livescience.com/38187-wind-turbines-rising.html) One of the reasons offshore wind energy is so effective is that these winds are stronger and steadier than onshore winds. And offshore winds are strongest during the day as well as in heat waves, when the demand for energy is highest. In fact, the East Coast of the United States has been dubbed the "Saudi Arabia" of offshore wind, since there is enough wind energy off this coast to provide the entire country with electricity — if the industry is fully developed.

Offshore Wind Negative DUDA 2014-2015 Novice Division

Pg. 1

Offshore Wind Negative – Table of Contents

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Advantage Answers:

Answers to: Climate Change Advantage:

Climate change is a natural cycle .................................................................................................. 3 Other countries produce CO2 emissions .................................................................................... 4-5 People will still use fossil fuels for energy ...................................................................................... 6 Wind can’t supply enough energy to reduce emissions ................................................................. 7

Answers to: Energy Poverty Advantage:

Renewable energy advances energy poverty ................................................................................ 8 Wind energy is more expensive than alternatives .......................................................................... 9 Energy efficient housing is the only way to solve ......................................................................... 10

Answers to: Jobs/Manufacturing Advantage:

Wind industry jobs are temporary ................................................................................................ 11 Wind industry jobs aren’t cost effective ................................................................................... 12-13

Solvency:

Offering subsidies won’t solve – Delays (Technology) ................................................................. 14 Offering subsidies won’t solve – Delays (Infrastructure) .............................................................. 15 Offering subsidies won’t solve – Delays (Regulations) ................................................................ 16 Regulatory delays deter investors ................................................................................................ 17 Answers to: Subsidies encourage investors ................................................................................ 18


Pg. 2

Summary

This packet offers answers to the specific claims made in the affirmative advantage and solvency contentions.

Against the climate change advantage, you will find arguments that climate change is natural, and that carbon emissions are inevitable.

Against the energy poverty advantage, you will find arguments that wind energy is actually more expensive, and thus is likely to increase energy poverty.

Against the jobs/manufacturing advantage, you will find arguments that the wind industry can’t provide sustainable employment without costly government subsidies.

To answer the affirmative’s solvency claims, this packet includes a variety of arguments detailing how it would take a long time to transition to a wind energy based economy – and how these delays would deter investors from funding wind projects.


Pg. 3

Climate change is a natural cycle

[ ] Climate change isn’t caused by CO2 or human activity – it’s a natural occurrence and we are on track to see temperature declines soon. Bell, Professor of Space Architecture at the University of Houston, 2012 (Larry, “Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change,” Forbes, January 10, Online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/) Finally, three major available global surface temperature record sources report a steady-to-cooling trend since 2001. These measurements contradict the strong warming predicted by all IPCC models during the same period that are attributed primarily to a continuing increase in CO2 emissions. Indeed, only one global surface record source shows a slight increase in the temperature since 2001. This occurred because missing temperature data needed to be adjusted or filled in to complete the records…which appears to be the case with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies model data resulting from poor sampling during the last decade for Antarctic and Arctic regions and the use of a 1200 km smoothing methodology.¶ The Duke University/NASA JPL study estimates that as much as 0.3 degrees of warming from 1970 to 2000 may have been naturally induced by the 60-year modulation during the warming phase, amounting to at least 43-60% of the 0.5-0.7 degrees allegedly caused by human greenhouse emissions. Additional natural warming can be explained by increased solar activity during the last four centuries, as well as simply being part of a natural and persistent warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age of AD 1300-1900.¶ Nicola Scaletta concludes that the scientific method requires that a physical model fulfill two conditions…it must be able to reconstruct as well as predict (or forecast) direct physical observations. Here, he argues that all climate models used by the IPCC can do neither. “They seriously fail to properly reconstruct even the large multi-decadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature which have climatic meaning. Consequently, the IPCC projections for the 21st century cannot be trusted.” In fact, he argues that “By not properly reconstructing the 20-year and 60-year natural cycles we found that the IPCC GCMs have seriously overestimated also the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to recent warming.”¶ Unlike the current IPCC models, the astronomical harmonics model can have real climate forecasting value. By combining current trend information with natural cycle patterns Scafetta believes that the global temperature “may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle.” He goes on to say: “If multi-secular natural cycles (which according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700-2010 warming and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3-1.2 degrees C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0-3.6 degree C projected warming.”


Pg. 4

Other countries produce CO2 emissions

[ ] Countries like China produce tons of CO2 – this makes climate change inevitable regardless of US reductions. Atkin, staff writer for Think Progress, 2014 (Emily, “Stoping Climate Change ‘Almost Impossible’ if China Can’t Quit Coal, Report Says,” Think Progress, May 12, Online: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/12/3436673/coal-dependent-china/) If China doesn’t begin to limit its coal consumption by 2030, it will be “almost impossible” for the world avoid a situation where global warming stays below 2°C, a new study released Monday found.¶ The study, led by the U.K.’s Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, recommends China put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from coal by 2020, and then swiftly reduce its dependency on the fossil fuel. The reductions would not only increase public health and wellness and decrease climate change, but could also “have a major positive effect on the global dynamics of climate cooperation,” the report said.¶ “The actions China takes in the next decade will be critical for the future of China and the world,” the study said. “Whether China moves onto an innovative, sustainable and low-carbon growth path this decade will more or less determine both China’s longer-term economic prospects in a natural resource-constrained world, … and the world’s prospects of cutting greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to manage the grave risks of climate change.”¶

The general question surrounding the prevention of climate change is whether the earth can avoid a 2°C situation — that is, whether we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions swiftly enough to keep global average surface temperatures from rising to 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels. World leaders, including China, agreed to avoid that 2°C situation in 2009 by signing the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, a three-page nonbinding pledge to fight climate change.¶ In 2011, one-fifth of the world’s total fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions came solely from China’s coal, and coal was responsible for more than 80 percent of the country’s 8 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions that year.¶ But despite increasing calls for China to reduce its coal-burning — not only because of climate impacts but because of infamous, choking air pollution — it has been unclear whether the country has made enough effort to actually make a dent in its consumption. The country has taken steps to replace thousands of small-scale coal mines with large ones, and its largest cities have pledged to make drastic reductions in emissions.¶ However, a Chinese government report recently found that only a tiny fraction of Chinese cities fully complied with pollution standards in 2013, while approving the construction of more than 100 million tonnes of new coal production capacity in 2013, according to a Reuters report.


Pg. 5

Other countries produce CO2 emissions

[ ] Chinese coal use accounts for nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions – and shows no signs of declining. Stern, Professor and Chair of Research on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, 2014 (Nicholas, “An innovative and sustainable growth path for China: a critical decade,” Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Online: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Green-and-Stern-policy-paper-May-2014.pdf) Fourth, China’s coal use is a major source of global GHG emissions and therefore increases the risks associated with climate change — risks to which China will be increasingly exposed. In 2011, coal was responsible for more than 80% of China’s 8Gt of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Figure 5),38 which were in turn around a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel combustion CO2 emissions (IEA 2013a). In other words, around one fifth of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion came from Chinese coal.¶ If Chinese coal consumption continues to grow, as most experts project, until sometime between 2025 and 2035, and declines only slowly thereafter (Figure 6), total Chinese emissions would seem likely to exceed 15GtCO2e by 2030, making it almost impossible for the world to move onto an emissions reduction pathway that gives even a 50-50 probability of staying below 2°C.39 Of course, developed countries are disproportionately responsible for the historical concentrations of emissions in the atmosphere, but the reality is that crossing this threshold would dramatically increase the risks of climate impacts to which China would be exposed — impacts that could reverse much of the growth and development that China has achieved over the preceding decades (IPCC 2014; WB/PIK/CA 2012; Stern 2012).


Pg. 6

People will still use fossil fuels for energy

[ ] Wind energy can’t get rid of fossil fuel consumption – things like transportations and heating depend on fuel that produces emissions. Rosenbloom, President of National Wind Watch, 2006 (Eric, “A Problem with Wind Power,” September, Online: http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html) Electricity represents only 39% of energy use in the U.S. (in Vermont, 20%; and only 1% of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions is from electricity generation). Pollution from fossil fuels also comes from transportation (cars, trucks, aircraft, and ships) and heating. Despite the manic installation of wind facilities in the U.K., their CO2 emissions rose in 2002 and 2003. At a May 27, 2004, conference in Copenhagen, the head of development from the Danish energy company Elsam stated, "Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions." Demanding better gas mileage in cars, including pickup trucks and SUVs, promoting rail for both freight and travel, and supporting the use of biodiesel (for example, from hemp) would make a huge impact on pollution and dependence on foreign oil, whereas wind power makes none. New-generation diesel-powered cars common in Europe use less than half the fuel as their gasoline counterparts in the U.S. ¶ Wind-power advocates often propose that wind turbines can be used to manufacture hydrogen for fuel cells. This may be an admirable plan (although Windpower Monthly dismisses it for several reasons in a May 2003 article) but is so far in the future that it only serves to underscore the fact that there is no good reason for current construction. And it must be remembered that as wind turbines are unable to produce significant amounts of electricity they would likewise be unable to produce significant amounts of hydrogen. On top of that, a 2004 study by the Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment determined that hydrogen returns only 47% of the energy put into it, compared with pumped hydro returning 75% and lithium ion batteries up to 85%.


Pg. 7

Wind can’t supply enough energy to reduce emissions

[ ] The affirmative’s authors assume wind farms’ potential output under ideal circumstances – but a variety of issues like weather make substantial electrical output nearly impossible. Bell, Professor of Space Architecture at the University of Houston, 2011 (Larry, “Wind Energy's Overblown Prospects,” Forbes, March 8, Online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/03/08/wind-energys-overblown-prospects/) Many green energy advocates have exaggerated the capacity of wind power to make a significant impact on U.S. electrical needs. Any euphoric fantasy that an unlimited, free and clean alternative to carbon-cursed fossil-fuel sources is blowing by with scant notice is exceedingly naïve and misguided.¶ A major point of public confusion in this regard lies in a failure to differentiate maximum total capacities, typically presented in megawatts (MW), with actual predicted kilowatt hours (kWh), which are determined by annual average wind conditions at a particular site. Wind is intermittent, and velocities constantly change. It often isn’t available when needed most — such as during hot summer days when demands for air-conditioning are highest.¶ According to a 2009 Energy Information Agency Report on Electricity Generation, wind power provided only 70 billion kWh of the total U.S. 3,953 kWh supply (1.79% of generated power). Yet in May 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that it is feasible to increase wind capacity to supply 20% of this nation’s electricity and enough to displace 50 % of natural gas consumption and 18% of coal use by 2030.¶ The report, drawn up by its national laboratories said that meeting this target presumed some important assumptions. It would require improvements in turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines and a five-fold increase in the pace of wind turbine installations. What exactly does that mean in terms of real, available kWh generating output? Actually, it means very little if merely a minor percentage of that technical feasibility provides electricity when needed. To be extremely optimistic, let’s assume that actual average output would be 25% of that projected installed capacity. In that case, the real output would be less than 5% of the country’s electricity, and more realistically, about half of even that amount under optimistic circumstances.


Pg. 8

Renewable energy advances energy poverty

[ ] Low cost fuel sources are solving energy inequality now – subsidized renewable energy is costly and advances fuel poverty. Sutton, Vice President of Global Communications at Peabody Energy, 2014 (Beth, “Peabody Energy Chairman & CEO Greg Boyce Calls On Leaders To Solve Energy Inequality During Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics Interview,” April 3, Online: http://www.peabodyenergy.com/Investor-News-Release-Details.aspx?nr=818) "Energy inequality is the blight of energy poverty, limiting access to basic needs like food, water and medicine; stunting education and cutting lives short," said Boyce. "Every one of the U.N. Millennium Development goals depends on adequate energy, yet today one out of every two citizens lacks adequate energy and over 4 million lives are lost yearly due to the impacts of this scourge." ¶ Boyce commented on what he calls the world's number one human and environmental crisis during a wide-ranging interview with Wall Street Journal Assistant Managing Editor and Executive Business Editor John Bussey. Top CEOs, policymakers and global leaders were part of the audience at the 2014 ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, Calif. ¶ Consider these statistics: ¶

Globally 3.5 billion people lack proper energy access, and 1.2 billion are children.¶ About half the children in the developing world attend schools without electricity.¶ Some 1 billion people receive substandard healthcare because of a lack of electricity.¶ The global population is expanding by more than 200,000 people each day, and by 2050, the world's population is forecast to exceed 9.6 billion, with over two-thirds living in cities.¶ Boyce said energy inequality is an issue for both developing and developed nations. "More energy is needed to create energy access for billions, to sustain growth for a new global middle class and improve access to low-cost electricity. Too many families in developed nations face the tough choice of paying for food or energy," he said. ¶ "The greatest environmental crisis we confront today is not a crisis predicted by computer models but a human crisis fully within our power to solve," Boyce said. ¶ Boyce called for driving policies and actions that increase access to reliable, low-cost power using today's advanced coal technologies that extends lives, builds economies and improves natural and indoor environments. ¶ Coal has the scale to meet these needs, and today's high-efficiency supercritical coal plants have state-of-the-art controls and ultra-low emission rates. Every large, advanced coal plant brings the equivalent carbon benefit of removing 1 million cars from the road.¶ "Policies that force use of more expensive, less reliable energy push costs throughout the economy and place the heaviest burden on the world's poor and low-income citizens. We need all forms of energy to address global needs, and we must recognize the strengths and limitations of each choice. Advanced coal is the sustainable fuel at scale that can meet these needs," Boyce said.¶ Coal has been the fastest-growing major fuel the past decade and is set to surpass oil as the world's largest fuel in coming years. Coal's market share for U.S. electricity generation has increased by one-third in the past two years, and now has twice the market share of natural gas.


Pg. 9

Wind energy is more expensive than alternatives

[ ] Wind energy is expensive – it’s only affordable because of government subsidies, which put more costs on the poor. Goreham, policy advisor to the Heartland Institute, 2013 (Steve, “Offshore Wind: The Enormously Expensive Energy Alternative,” Washington Times, June 7, Online: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/jun/7/offshore-wind-enormously-expensive-energy-alternat/) Unfortunately, offshore wind is enormously expensive. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the levelized cost of wind-generated electricity at more than double the cost of coal-fired electricity and more than three times the cost of power from natural gas. For example, the proposed Cape Wind project off the coast of southeast Massachusetts will initially deliver electricity at 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour with a built-in increase of 3.5 percent per year over a fifteen-year contract. This is more than triple the wholesale cost of electricity in New England.¶

Offshore wind is only possible because of generous subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates from government. Today, 38 states offer property tax incentives, 28 states offer sales tax incentives, and 24 states offer tax credits for renewable energy sources. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards laws requiring utilities to buy an increasing share of electricity from renewable sources, including all ten states in the Offshore Wind Energy Consortium.¶ At the start of the year, the US government extended the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), providing 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from wind. The PTC will cost taxpayers $12 billion this year. Look for the DOE to offer loan guarantees to offshore wind developers. Altogether, government incentives pay 30 to 50 percent of the cost of a wind installation.¶ The consumer pays twice for offshore wind. First, consumer taxes fund wind energy subsidies and tax breaks. Second, states like Massachusetts force utilities to buy high-cost offshore wind electricity, which then increase electricity rates so the consumer pays again.


Pg. 10

Energy efficient housing is the only way to solve

[ ] Fuel prices are subject to change – only measures to create energy efficient housing will protect the poor. Sir Marmot, Director of the International Institute for Society & Health, 2011 (Michael, “The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty,” Friends of the Earth Report, Online: http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/cold_homes_health.pdf) Cold housing and fuel poverty not only have direct and immediate impacts on health, but also indirect impacts and a wider effect on well-being and life opportunities, as well as on climate change. The evidence reviewed in this paper shows the dramatic impact that cold housing has on the population in terms of cardio-vascular and respiratory morbidity and on the elderly in terms of winter mortality. It also highlights the stark effect that fuel poverty has on mental health across many different groups, while also having an impact on children and young people’s well-being and opportunities.¶

Addressing energy inefficient housing and bringing all homes up to a minimum standard of thermal efficiency would have the strongest positive impact on the poorest households, even though households from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds are likely to be residents of such properties.¶ A medium scenario model for fuel price increases developed in 2008 predicted fuel poverty in England to jump to four million by 2016 if improvements to the energy performance of the housing stock, and growth in the incomes of low-income households, were maintained at only current rates (69). Fuel poverty has now already risen to this level because the fuel price increase was much higher than the model predicted: the current energy efficiency of the existing housing stock is unable to mitigate such high increases. However, it is unlikely that anyone living in a dwelling built to current and near-future standards will be at any risk of being in fuel poverty (70). The Government should aim to make improving energy efficiency standards a priority: any step forward in achieving certain minimum standards in the existing housing stock will reduce the risk of fuel poverty for current and future households and bring associated health benefits.


Pg. 11

Wind industry jobs are temporary

[ ] The wind industry will inevitably collapse – these jobs aren’t stable. Fernando, Writer for Business Insider, 2010 (Vincent, “America’s Wind Power Bubble – Massive Growth Yet Bleeding Jobs,” Business Insider, Online: http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-wind-energy-revolution-hits-critical-mass-2010-1) 2009 was a banner year for American wind power, thanks to Recovery Act incentives according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).¶ Total installed capacity leapt 40% to 35,159 megawatts, solidifying its lead as the nation with the most wind power capacity. The next largest producer, Germany, only grew its capacity about 20% in 2009 to 25,000 megawatts.¶

On a state-by-state basis, Texas leads the nation in wind power capacity:¶ Yet there's a huge catch. Despite having its best year of growth ever, the industry still experienced net job losses. Its outlook also remains uncertain -- unless more government incentives are doled out:¶ AWEA: the continuing lack of a long-term policy and market signal allowed total investment in the manufacturing sector to drop compared to 2008, with one-third fewer online, announced and expanded wind power manufacturing facilities in 2009. The result was net job losses in the manufacturing sector, which were compounded by low orders due to high inventory. Looking forward, the critical Recovery Act manufacturing incentives that were announced only at the start of this year will also need to be supplemented with the hard targets of a national Renewable Electricity Standard.¶ The underlying problem remains that wind power is far too dependent on taxpayer subsidies. Thus it can't stand on its own feet, yet is growing like mad. That's the definition of a bubble.

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/45049/4590/

http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/01-26-10_AWEA_Q4_and_Year-End_Report_Release.html


Pg. 12

Wind industry jobs aren’t cost effective

[ ] Each job generated by the wind industry costs the government $14 million dollars. Hemphill and Perry, Associate Professor of Strategy, Innovation, and Public Policy at the University of Michigan & scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2012 (Thomas A. Hemphill and Mark J. Perry, “How Obama’s Energy Policy Will Kill Jobs,” American Enterprise Institute, Online: http://www.american.com/archive/2012/march/how-obamas-energy-policy-will-kill-jobs/article_print) What makes this differential tax treatment especially misguided at this time is that the oil and natural gas industry has been one of the most robust sectors of the economy, actively creating the “shovel-ready” jobs that Obama agrees are so critical to the economic recovery.¶

Overall employment in the U.S. economy still remains short by almost 5 million jobs, and more than 3 percent below the pre-recession employment peak in November 2007. But the oil and natural gas industry has added 34,200 jobs over that period and expanded industry employment by more than 22 percent. Oil and natural gas companies have been on a hiring spree, adding almost 100 new payroll jobs every day for the last year.¶ In contrast, job creation in green energy projects has so far been very disappointing. According to a recent Wall Street Journal analysis of $4.3 billion in public funding for wind energy under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, there were 36 wind farms that employed 7,200 American workers during the peak of their construction, or an average of 200 workers per project. Today, according to these companies and state and local government economic development officials, those projects employ only about 300 workers, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $14 million per permanent job.


Pg. 13

Wind industry jobs aren’t cost effective

[ ] International studies prove – jobs insanely expensive Bell, Professor of Space Architecture at the University of Houston, 2011 (Larry, “Wind Energy's Overblown Prospects,” Forbes, March 8, Online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/03/08/wind-energys-overblown-prospects/) Will the construction and maintenance of wind power produce the many thousands of “high-quality green jobs” touted by the industry? Not according to a report from Spain released by researchers at King Juan Carlos University. It concluded that every “green job” created by the wind industry killed off 4.2 jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy through missed opportunities to put that money towards more useful and productive ends.¶ While research director Gabriel Calzada Alvarez didn’t fundamentally object to wind power, he did find that when a government artificially props up the industry with subsidies, higher electrical costs (31%) and tax hikes (5%), along with government debt follow. Each of those jobs was estimated to cost $800,000 per year to create, and 90% of those were temporary. A few months after the study was released, researchers at the Danish Center for Politiske Studier reached similar conclusions based upon their country’s experience: “It is fair to assess that no wind energy would exist if it had to compete on market terms.”


Pg. 14

Offering subsidies won’t solve – Delays (Technology)

[ ] Even if investor confidence is there, it will take years to develop a substantial offshore wind presence – multiple technological barriers to implementation that can supply US Giordano, JD from University of Richmond School of Law, 2010 (Michael, “Offshore Windfall: What Approval of the United States’ First Offshore Wind Project Means for the Offshore Wind Energy Industry,” University of Richmond Law Review, 44:3, March, Online: http://lawreview.richmond.edu/offshore-windfall/) One of the things keeping the offshore wind energy industry from growing is a lack of sufficient technology. Expanded growth of the offshore wind industry will depend on research, development, and innovation.[46] Areas of technological need include improved reliability, greater environmental compatibility, and cost reduction.[47] Technological advances must address these areas of need with regard not just to the design of turbines but also to the installation process and maintenance.¶ At present, offshore wind turbines are basically larger versions of onshore wind turbines that have been adapted to the marine environment.[48] The current foundation system for offshore wind turbines consists of large steel tubes called monopiles, which are typically embedded twenty-five to thirty meters below the mud line.[49] Monopile designs are considered appropriate for waters up to thirty meters deep.[50] Offshore wind farms use large turbines “ranging from the Vestas V-80 2 MW turbine to GE Wind’s 3.6 MW turbine to Repower’s 126 m diameter, 5 MW turbine.”[51]¶ Present foundation technology limits the offshore wind energy industry’s ability to harness the full potential of offshore wind energy. The strongest and most consistent winds blow above waters deeper than thirty meters.[52] A marginal “10% increase in wind speed creates a 33% increase in available energy.”[53] Thus, meaningful growth of offshore wind energy is dependent upon the research and development of new technologies that enable developers to place turbines in deep water. Some anticipate the creation of “[s]tiffer, multi-pile configurations with broader bases suitable . . . for water depths up to 60 m or greater.”[54] From there, many expect that foundations will transition even further, toward floating turbine structures that would be fastened and secured to the ocean floor by wires.[55] Such a transition would have to make use of existing technologies from the oil and natural gas industries, which already use floating platforms.[56] Unlike oil and gas projects on the OCS, wind projects require fast, modular installations that can be replicated easily due to the anticipated frequency of maintenance.[57] Researchers believe that “[t]he biggest challenge for deepwater wind turbines will be to merge the mature but expensive technologies borne of the oil and gas industry with the experience of low-cost economic drivers fueling the shallow water offshore wind energy industry.”


Pg. 15

Offering subsidies won’t solve – Delays (Infrastructure)

[ ] Existing technologies from on-shore wind farms don’t translate to offshore facilities – AND the US needs a whole new fleet of ships to install and maintain OSW. Giordano, JD from University of Richmond School of Law, 2010 (Michael, “Offshore Windfall: What Approval of the United States’ First Offshore Wind Project Means for the Offshore Wind Energy Industry,” University of Richmond Law Review, 44:3, March, Online: http://lawreview.richmond.edu/offshore-windfall/) The installation process also brings technological challenges to the offshore wind energy industry. In order to install offshore wind turbines, developers will need to hire a fleet of vessels including “barges with compensated cranes, leg stabilized feeder fleets, oil and gas dynamic positioning vessels, and floating heavy lift cranes.”[62] “This imposes a limitation on American offshore wind development, since all vessels used for construction and operations and maintenance (O&M) . . . have been European,”[63] and United States law mandates that only United States-based vessels may work in United States waters, with little exception.[64] Thus, growth of domestic offshore wind energy also depends on the construction of new, customized vessels in the United States. Technology must also find ways to address uncertainties associated with connecting to the electrical grid and finding ways to¶ assemble turbines at nearby land locations just prior to installation in the seabed.¶ DOE recognizes that the advancement of offshore wind energy will require “technologies that are substantially different from those employed in land-based installations,” and technology must “be tailored to U.S. offshore requirements, which differ from those in the European North Sea environment.”[65] Such an endeavor will require the attention of stakeholders from public, private, and nonprofit organizations in order to help the United States harness its vast offshore wind resources.


Pg. 16

Offering subsidies won’t solve – Delays (Regulations)

[ ] Regulations are seen by developers as inconsistent and time consuming – this elevates the perception of costs and risk, chilling investment Copping, PhD in Oceanography for University of Washington and researcher for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Marine Sciences Laboratory, 2010 (Andrea, “Offshore Wind Energy Permitting: A Survey of U.S. Project Developers,” DOE Report, November, Online: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-20024.pdf) Developers reported that experience with offshore wind project permitting was “fairly painful”, “extremely challenging”, “overly arduous”, “relative easy because it‟s in state waters”, “uncertain and unnecessarily slow”, and “poorly defined resulting in unnecessarily large investment risk because sites can‟t be secured”. Developers reported a disconnect between support at the top of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE; formerly Minerals Management Service) and slowing of progress to a standstill at the permit processing level within agencies, shifting requirements (“we saw goalposts move constantly”), and that “state permitting is relatively straight forward and easy [compared to the federal process]”.¶ Developers noted that clear instructions from agencies were often lacking as many state or federal agencies are developing a permitting process at the same time they are trying to permit the first wave of projects. Developers also noted a lack of deadlines and review timelines for response from federal agencies and expressed frustration with this additional uncertainty.1 Generally, developers working at the state level, in various states, expressed less discontent with the permitting process. Frustration with the federal permitting process was common to all respondents working at the federal level.


Pg. 17

Regulatory delays deter investors

[ ] Investors perceive regulatory delays – they won’t invest because it undermines their chances of getting tax credits. Walsh, Law Clerk for the Superior Court of Connecticut, 2013 (Kevin, “Renewable Energy Financial Incentives: Focusing on Federal Tax Credits and the Section 1603 Cash Grant: Barriers to Development,” environs, 36:2, Online: http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/walsh.pdf) NEPA and EIS requirements do not take into account the time-sensitive nature of renewable energy projects and Congress’ legislative inconsistency. Current tax credit and grant extensions are usually only for one to three years. An EIS statement, however, takes on average three years to complete. This means that a project cannot be placed into service until the final EIS statement is submitted and a decision that the project may commence is made. The time period for EIS statements makes investors uneasy because the credit/grant may lapse by the time the project is placed in service.¶ This distinction is important because if the project is placed into service after the credit/grant has lapsed, the investor cannot take advantage of the credit/grant, even if the credit/grant was available at the beginning of the project. This makes developers and investors reluctant to invest and stunts renewable energy development. One way to provide developers and investors more certainty is to extend the credit/grant for a period of at least five years to account for the NEPA requirements.¶ There are also state level requirements that may need to be met before a renewable energy project is placed into service. If such requirements exist, this may further deter investors from taking risks in renewable energy projects. This all depends on how complex and how much time the state level requirements take. Our analysis turns here.


Pg. 18

Answers to: Subsidies encourage investors

[ ]

[ ] Funding is a secondary concern – projects can’t even get off the ground because of bureaucratic brambles. Zeller, Journalism Fellow at MIT, 2013 (Tom, Cape Wind: Regulation, Litigation And The Struggle To Develop Offshore Wind Power In The U.S.,” Huffington Post, March 1, Online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/23/cape-wind-regulation-liti_n_2736008.html) To help expedite matters, DOE in December announced some $168 million in funding over the next six years for seven offshore demonstration projects. And that funding came on the heels of the Department of Interior's first-ever plans to open up some 164,000 acres along the Atlantic coast for lease sales to commercial offshore wind power developers.¶ The move is part of the Obama administration's "Smart from the Start" program, launched in 2010 -- not long after final federal approval for Cape Wind was issued -- and is designed to speed offshore wind power development off the Atlantic Coast. "The Cape Wind lease is an historic milestone in America's renewable energy future, but to fully harness the economic and energy benefits of our nation's vast Atlantic wind potential we need to implement a smart permitting process that is efficient, thorough, and unburdened by needless red tape," Salazar said at the time.¶ But that program would only help to speed up leasing for offshore wind. In most cases, projects would still need to undergo a full environmental review -- and the agonizingly protracted scoping and litigation that so often comes with it.¶ "I was very happy to see it," said Duffy, the attorney and vice president of the Cape Wind project, referring to the Smart from the Start program. "But it doesn't address the conflicting positions of different agencies or the possibility of multiple agency appeals, perhaps even in different courts. It still doesn’t put a time limit on things."¶ Reform advocates at Common Good have pointed to other countries with flourishing renewable energy industries, including Great Britain, Denmark and Germany, where processes for regulating and permitting clean energy projects were designed in many cases from the ground up. These so-called one-stop shop systems identify a single government agency as the designated handler of renewable project permitting, and as the sole interface between developers and the government. Strict timelines are in place for reviewing the impacts and considering alternatives, and an ample but clearly defined window for public input and court challenges keeps proposals from becoming bogged down in endless litigation.

Offshore Wind Negative – Off Case DUDA 2014-2015 Novice Division

Pg. 1

Offshore Wind Negative Off Case – Table of Contents

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Turbine Construction Disadvantage

Turbine Construction Disadvantage 1NC .................................................................................... 3-5 Impact add-on: Environment .......................................................................................................... 6 Answers to: Other industries use rare earth minerals .................................................................... 7 Answers to: No supply shortage – other countries produce rare earth minerals ............................ 8 Answers to: Wind is cleaner than fossil fuels ................................................................................. 9 Answers to: Offshore rigs protect the environment. ..................................................................... 10 Answers to: Climate change outweighs species loss ................................................................... 11

Nuclear Power Disadvantage

Nuclear Power Disadvantage 1NC Shell ................................................................................ 12-13 Answers to: Nuclear power industry already declining ................................................................. 14 Answers to: Grid is reliable .......................................................................................................... 15 Answers to: Offshore wind increases grid reliability ..................................................................... 16 Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Generic) .............................................................................. 17-18 Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Proliferation) ............................................................................. 19 Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Target for terrorism) ................................................................. 20 Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Radioactive waste) ................................................................... 21 Impact: Turns Climate Change – Wind requires fossil fuel backup .............................................. 22


Pg. 2

Summary

This negative argues that the United States should not increase the number of electricity-generating wind turbines in the ocean by offering tax breaks to wind energy companies for their offshore operations.

This packet contains two main reasons why offering tax breaks for offshore wind operations is a bad idea:

First, turbine production is bad for a number of reasons – this disadvantage argues that an expansion in the number of offshore wind farms will negatively impact the United States’ military by causing a supply cut-off of rare earth minerals, which are a major component in wind turbines. This disadvantage also argues that turbine production produces tons of toxic waste, as well as potentially harming species in the water around wind turbines. Second, it would undermine the nuclear power industry – this disadvantage argues that subsidizing wind energy will effectively destroy a variety of renewable energy competitors – specifically nuclear energy. Unlike wind energy, nuclear power produces a stable flow of energy regardless of weather conditions, which reduces strains on the national power grid, avoiding catastrophic blackouts.


Pg. 3

Turbine Construction Disadvantage 1NC (1/3)

A. Increased use of turbines would increase demand for rare earth metals from China. Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, 2012 (Paul, Wind Power: Questionable Benefits, Concealed Impacts; The Epoch Times, online: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/wind-power-questionable-benefits-concealed-impacts-52864.html) Over 95 percent of global rare earth production occurs in China and Mongolia, using their technology, coal-fired electricity generation facilities and environmental rules. Extracting neodymium, praseodymium, and other rare earths for wind turbine magnets and rotors involves pumping acid down boreholes, to dissolve and retrieve the minerals. Other acids, chemicals, and high heat further process the materials. Millions of tons of toxic waste are generated annually and sent to enormous ponds, rimmed by earthen dams.¶ Leaks, seepage, and noxious air emissions have killed trees, grasses, and crops and cattle, polluted lakes and streams, and given thousands of people respiratory and intestinal problems, osteoporosis, and cancer.¶ In 2009, China produced 150,000 tons of rare earth metals—and over 15,000,000 tons of waste. To double current global installed wind capacity, and produce rare earths for photovoltaic solar panels and hybrid and electric cars, China will have to increase those totals significantly—unless Molycorp and other companies can rejuvenate rare earth production in the United States and elsewhere, using more modern methods.


Pg. 4


B. Rapid increases in demand will cause China to cut off rare earth mineral exports – they want to maintain supplies for Chinese manufacturers.

Moss et. Al, Institute for Energy and the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, 2011 (R.L.Moss1, E.Tzimas1, H.Kara2, P.Willis2 and J.Kooroshy3, “Critical Metals in Strategic Energy Technologies”, Online: http://www.oakdenehollins.co.uk/media/242/CriticalMetalsinSET.pdf) Such bottlenecks could disrupt a timely and affordable supply of these metals to Europe in the future and potentially hinder the smooth deployment of SETPlan technologies and the realisation of the EU 2020 targets. In this context, it is important to note that significant SETPlan demands for a specific metal on itself do not necessarily constitute a problem. Demand for raw materials changes constantly as technologies and consumption patterns change over time. This creates incentives for adapting supply, so that the market balance is restored. However, such adaptation processes can be very time-consuming, for example, when it takes many years to open new mines. If demand expands rapidly and supply is unable to keep pace in the short to medium term, bottlenecks in the form of price rises and supply shortages can be the consequence. In cases where only a few countries control the production of an individual metal under tight market conditions, bottlenecks can also be exacerbated through political interventions by governments. Dominant producers may, for example, use their market power to gain political or commercial advantages through influencing supply and prices or imposing trade restrictions. A good example of how disruptive such bottlenecks can be is the case of rare earths. Given the challenging economic and technical obstacles involved in opening new rare earths mines, supply has struggled to grow considerably even though demand has been booming over the past decade. b In parallel, China has been systematically tightening export quotas that favour domestic rare earth consuming industries over competitors in the rest of the world, resulting in 2010, in a tight market and driving up prices. China implemented strict measures to consolidate a weakly regulated industry with many small scale operations that routinely ignore safety, environmental and export regulations; and a temporary halt of rare earth exports to Japan was imposed to exert political pressure in the context of a diplomatic dispute. Taken together, this combination of political and market factors have resulted in considerable supply shortages and price rises for rare earths over the course of 2010.c Indeed, even at the time of writing, there have been further substantial increases in the price of some rare earth oxides (especially dysprosium oxide) in 2011 alone.


Pg. 5


C. That undermines our military, which depends on rare earth minerals for radar, weapons guidance, and other key capabilities.

Kennedy, President of Wings Enterprises, 2010 (J. Kennedy, March, “Critical and Strategic Failure of Rare Earth Resources,” Online: http://www.smenet.org/rareEarthsProject/TMS-NMAB-paperV-3.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, nano-particle 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.”


Pg. 6

Impact add-on: Environment

[ ] Wind turbines harm bird species and require rare earth minerals to function – mining these destroys the environment and causes public health crises. Fisher and Fitzsimmons, Analysts at The Institute for Energy Research, 2013 (Travis and Alex, “Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste,” Institute for Energy Research, October 23, Online: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/10/23/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/) The wind industry promotes itself as better for the environment than traditional energy sources such as coal and natural gas. For example, the industry claims that wind energy reduces carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.¶ But there are many ways to skin a cat. As IER pointed out last week, even if wind curbs CO2 emissions, wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year in clear violation of federal law. Any marginal reduction in emissions comes at the expense of protected bird species, including bald and golden eagles. The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way, and life is full of necessary trade-offs. The further truth is that affordable, abundant energy has made life for billions of people much better than it ever was.¶ Another environmental trade-off concerns the materials necessary to construct wind turbines. Modern wind turbines depend on rare earth minerals mined primarily from China. Unfortunately, given federal regulations in the U.S. that restrict rare earth mineral development and China’s poor record of environmental stewardship, the process of extracting these minerals imposes wretched environmental and public health impacts on local communities. It’s a story Big Wind doesn’t want you to hear.¶ Rare Earth Horrors¶ Manufacturing wind turbines is a resource-intensive process. A typical wind turbine contains more than 8,000 different components, many of which are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete. One such component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals. ¶ Simon Parry from the Daily Mail traveled to Baotou, China, to see the mines, factories, and dumping grounds associated with China’s rare-earths industry. What he found was truly haunting:¶ As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.¶ ‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’¶ People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.¶ Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found.¶ As the wind industry grows, these horrors will likely only get worse. Growth in the wind industry could raise demand for neodymium by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years, while demand for dysprosium could increase by 2,600 percent, according to a recent MIT study. The more wind turbines pop up in America, the more people in China are likely to suffer due to China’s policies. Or as the Daily Mail put it, every turbine we erect contributes to “a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China.”

http://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5454

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/10/16/cuisinarts-of-the-sky-continue-to-dodge-environmental-laws

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/21/obamas-plan-for-more-energy-dependence-on-china/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2013/04/02/chinas-continuing-monopoly-over-rare-earth-minerals

http://www.rareearthassociation.org/MIT-Ford%20Study.pdf


Pg. 7

Answers to: Other industries use rare earth minerals

[ ]

[ ] Other industries don’t require as much neodymium and can be recycled – only wind turbines drive the creation of new mines. Clancy, Contributor to Forbes, 2014 (Heather, Rare Earth Recycling Takes On New Luster, online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherclancy/2014/02/25/rare-earth-recycling-takes-on-new-luster/print/) In most cases, the materials will go to less critical applications. For example, it would be odd to see the high grade neodynium from wind turbines be put back into the same application as its original use.¶ Notes Kachan in his report:¶ Recycling is perhaps the best route forward for elements where demand is expected to level off in the long run. Expect demand for terbium and europium, for example, to fade as fluorescent bulbs are eventually replaced with much smaller LEDs. But for other elements, like neodymium, new supply is needed. Currently only tiny amounts of neodymium are required for ear-buds of smartphones—but high-performance wind turbines need about two tons each. But it’s only these sort of large quantity applications that are expected to drive the need for new mines.


Pg. 8

Answers to: No supply shortage – other countries produce rare earth minerals

[ ]

[ ] China controls rare earth mineral market – that’s because they don’t have environmental regulations on mining so it’s cheaper to produce. Paramaguru, Staff Writer for TIME Magazine, 2013 (Kharunya, “Rethinking Our Risky Reliance on Rare Earth Metals,” Time, December 20, Online: http://science.time.com/2013/12/20/rare-earths-are-too-rare/) While we are not running out of rare earths yet, what could be a problem is the amount of energy and money required to extract them—to a point where it could no longer be economically viable to use them as part of modern industrial design. This also has problems, as the use of rare earths has allowed designers to employ a wider pallet of materials to improve efficiency and produce more environmentally friendly designs, as seen in more efficient modern jet engines. Rare earths have also become important to renewable energy technology: neodymium, terbium and dysprosium are used in the magnets of wind turbines and electric and hybrid cars contain about 10 to 15 pounds more of rare earths than a standard car.¶ However increased mining for these scarce resources can have some nasty side effects for the environment. China, which has intensively mined for rare earths with little regulation, allowing it to dominate the global industry since 1990, has acknowledged the incredible environmental harm caused by the process. “Excessive rare earth mining has resulted in landslides, clogged rivers, environmental pollution emergencies and even major accidents and disasters, causing great damage to people’s safety and health and the ecological environment,” read a white paper issued by the Chinese cabinet in June last year. The government is now spending billions of dollars attempting to clean up this damage, and on Dec. 13 Beijing signalled once again that it would seek to cut exports of rare earths—although some critics have accused China of using environmental concerns as an excuse to use its control of the rare earths market to punish countries it doesn’t like, such as Japan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/business/global/china-vows-tighter-controls-over-rare-earth-mining.html?gwh=0E802D61293D26A730B5894BCB402F74&gwt=pay


Pg. 9

Answers to: Wind is cleaner than fossil fuels

[ ]

[ ] Proponents of wind energy ignore environmental harm caused by every step of construction and implementation – wind just displaces pollution to other countries that produce the parts. Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, 2012 (Paul, “Wind Power: Questionable Benefits, Concealed Impacts,” The Epoch Times, Online: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/wind-power-questionable-benefits-concealed-impacts-52864.html) Turbines require enormous quantities of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, and rare earth minerals—all of which involve substantial resource extraction, refining, smelting, manufacturing, and shipping. Land and habitat impacts, rock removal and pulverizing, solid waste disposal, burning fossil fuels, air and water pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions occur on a large scale during every step of the process.¶ Over 95 percent of global rare earth production occurs in China and Mongolia, using their technology, coal-fired electricity generation facilities and environmental rules. Extracting neodymium, praseodymium, and other rare earths for wind turbine magnets and rotors involves pumping acid down boreholes, to dissolve and retrieve the minerals. Other acids, chemicals, and high heat further process the materials. Millions of tons of toxic waste are generated annually and sent to enormous ponds, rimmed by earthen dams.¶ Leaks, seepage, and noxious air emissions have killed trees, grasses, and crops and cattle, polluted lakes and streams, and given thousands of people respiratory and intestinal problems, osteoporosis, and cancer.


Pg. 10

Answers to: Offshore rigs protect the environment

[ ]

[ ] Offshore wind rigs offer a host of environmental risks during installation, operation, and maintenance. Moore and Drummond, environmental insurance lawyers, 2008 (Meagan and Keven, “Offshore Wind Environmental Risks and Insurance Challenges,” Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Journal, October, Online: http://64.118.75.138/D890EA/assets/files/documents/Offshore%20Wind%20-%20Enivronmental%20Risks%20and%20Insurance%20Challenges%20Oct13_Bar_Journal.pdf) Although wind power offers an emission- free (at the point of use), renewable energy source, there are environmental risks related to the development and utilization of offshore wind farms. Because of the relatively new technology, the industry has not amassed a great deal of experience regarding what might go wrong in the construction of offshore wind turbines or once operation of the wind turbine commences. Accordingly, the risks of offshore wind development are wide-ranging and difficult to predict and to quantify; available insurance products on the market today offer only limited coverage for many of these risks.¶ The environmental risks related to the development and utilization of offshore wind farms, specifically offshore fresh waters like Lake Erie, range from the potential effects on bird and fish populations to subsurface effects, like earthquakes or subsidence, to potential water pollution concerns should a turbine be damaged from a collision or simple wear and tear. Some of the more specific potential risks that have been identified are:¶ 1010 Disruption of the flight patterns of some migrating birds due to the expansive turbine blades.¶ 1010 Damage to fish populations as a result of construction and operation of the wind turbine and as a result of noise from wind turbine’s operations.¶

1010 Electromagnetic fields from underwater cables stretched across the lake bed could disrupt the freshwater ecosystem.¶ 1010 Sediment in a lake bed could be disturbed as a result of the construction process.¶ 1010 Lake water contamination could result from leakage of oil from the wind turbine due to¶ wear and tear of the turbine’s generator, as a result of collisions with ships, or due to catastrophic events such as fire.¶ 1010 The construction of the wind turbine farm could impact subsurface conditions and cause earth movement, subsidence, or even earthquakes.¶

1010 There is a potential for damage to the turbines and the lakeshore from fire, electrical shock or other problems from the large underwater cables being stretched along the lake bed.


Pg. 11

Answers to: Climate change outweighs species loss

[ ]

[ ] You should prioritize small-scale environmental damage over climate change – biodiversity is key to resilience and global survival. Crist, professor of Science and Technology in Society at Virginia Tech, 2006 (Eileen, “Beyond the Climate Crisis: a Critique of Climate Change Discourse,” Telos, Winter, pg. 29-55, Online) The biosphere is experiencing gross decline or elimination of areas that are, in certain cases, centers of diversification— most notably, tropical forests, wetlands, mangrove forests, and coral reefs everywhere. The whittling down of ecological complexity has been a global trend proceeding from the conversion of ecosystems for intensive human uses, the aforementioned population depletions, and the invasion of nonnative species. Nonnative species are the generalists hitching rides in the bustle of globalization—from the climate-change-favored fungus that is killing frogs, to millions of domestic cats preying on birds, to innumerable more.26 Human-facilitated invasions, coupled with the disappearance of natives, lead to places losing the constellation of life-forms that once uniquely constituted them. The inevitable outcome of extinction, plummeting populations, lost and simplified ecosystems, and a bio-homogenized world is not only the global demolition of wild nature, but also the halting of speciation of much complex life. The conditions for the birth of new species within a wide band of life, especially of large-bodied species that reproduce slowly, are being suspended.27 All these interconnected dimensions constitute what conservation biologists call the biodiversity crisis—a term that to the postmodernist rings of rhetoric, while to the broad public (insofar as it has heard anything about it) involves a largely illiterate and vague understanding of “extinction.” 28 Academic frivolity and public ignorance aside, the biodiversity crisis heralds a biospheric impoverishment that will be the condition and experience of all future human generations: it requires 5 to 10 million years for biodiversity to recover after a mass extinction of the current scope. In light of this fact, I submit that unless global warming unleashes appalling penalties—in which case, the climate crisis and biodepletion will merge into one devastating event for virtually all life29—the implications of humanity’s impact on biodiversity are so far-reaching that they may, in reality, dwarf the repercussions of climate change. And yet, the current framing of climate change as the urgent issue encourages regarding the unwinding of biodiversity as a less critical matter than the forthcoming repercussions of global warming. Attention to the long-standing ruination of biodiversity underway is subverted in two ways in climate-change discourse: either it gets elided through a focus on anthropocentric anxieties about how climate change will specifically affect people and nations; or biodepletion is presented as a corollary of climate change in writings that closely consider how global warming will cause biodiversity losses. Climate change is undoubtedly speeding up the unraveling of life’s interconnectedness and variety. But if global warming has such potential to afflict the natural world, it is because the latter’s “immunity” has been severely compromised. It is on an already profoundly wounded natural world that global warming is delivering its blow. Focusing on the added blow of climate change is important, but this focus should not come at the expense of erasing from view the prior, ongoing, and climate-change-independent wounding of life on Earth.


Pg. 12

Nuclear Power Disadvantage 1NC Shell (1/2)

A. Uniqueness and Link – nuclear power provides energy for a substantial portion of America. Giving incentives to offshore wind gives the upper hand to an intermittent energy source, straining the national power grid.

Goreman, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, 2014 (Steve, “US Power Grid at the Limit,” The Hill, Online: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/204194-us-power-grid-at-the-limit) Nuclear generating facilities are also under attack. Many of the 100 nuclear power plants that provided 20 percent of U.S. electricity for decades can no longer be operated profitably. Exelon’s six nuclear power plants in Illinois have operated at a loss for the last six years and are now candidates for closure.¶ What industry pays customers to take its product? The answer is the U.S. wind industry. Wind-generated electricity is typically bid in electrical wholesale markets at negative prices. But how can wind systems operate at negative prices?¶ The answer is that the vast majority of U.S. wind systems receive a federal production tax credit (PTC) of up to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for produced electricity. Some states add an addition credit, such as Iowa, which provides a corporate tax credit of 1.5 cents per kw-hr. So wind operators can supply electricity at a pre-tax price of a negative 3 or 4 cents per kw-hr and still make an after-tax profit from subsidies, courtesy of the taxpayer.¶ As wind-generated electricity has grown, the frequency of negative electricity pricing has grown. When demand is low, such as in the morning, wholesale electricity prices sometimes move negative. In the past, negative market prices have provided a signal to generating systems to reduce output.¶ But wind systems ignore the signal and continue to generate electricity to earn the PTC, distorting wholesale electricity markets. Negative pricing by wind operators and low natural gas prices have pushed nuclear plants into operating losses. Yet, Congress is currently considering whether to again extend the destructive PTC subsidy.¶ Capacity shortages are beginning to appear. A reserve margin deficit of two gigawatts is projected for the summer of 2016 for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), serving the Northern Plains states. Reserve shortages are also projected for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) by as early as this summer.¶ The United States has the finest electricity system in the world, with prices one-half those of Europe. But this system is under attack from foolish energy policies. Coal-fired power plants are closing, unable to meet EPA environmental guidelines. Nuclear plants are aging and beset by mounting losses, driven by negative pricing from subsidized wind systems. Without a return to sensible energy policies, prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-09/business/ct-exelon-closing-nuclear-plants-0308-biz-20140309_1_quad-cities-plant-byron-plant-exelon

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/exelon.pdf

http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/energy/wind_generation.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/203196-reid-seeks-senate-vote-soon-on-tax-break-bill-that-includes-wind-energy

http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2013_LTRA_FINAL.pdf


Pg. 13

Nuclear Power Disadvantage 1NC Shell (2/2)

B. Impact – unreliable power sources like wind cause widespread power outages, resulting in economic shocks.

Barrett, writer for the Lexington Institute, 2012 (Michael, “Ensuring the Resiliance of the U.S. Electrical Grid – Part II: Managing the Chaos – and Costs – of Shared Risks,” Lexington Institute, Online: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ensuring-the-resilience-of-the-u-s-electrical-grid-part-ii-managing-the-chaos-and-costs-of-shared-risks/) Nonetheless, reliability is still a concern, and is intimately tied to resilience of the system. In fact, as noted by the Galvin Electricity Initiative regarding being 99.97% reliable, “while this sounds good in theory, in practice it translates to interruptions in the electricity supply that cost American consumers an estimated $150 billion per year.”¶ As another source reports, “The grid is designed to work at least 99.97 percent of the time, but just 0.03 percent still equals an average loss of 2.6 hours of power each year for customers across the U.S.” Furthermore, as CNN has reported, “Experts on the nation’s electricity system point to a frighteningly steep increase in non-disaster-related outages affecting at least 50,000 consumers… During the past two decades, such blackouts have increased 124 percent – up from 41 blackouts between 1991 and 1995, to 92 between 2001 and 2005, according to research at the University of Minnesota.”¶ But particularly pernicious is the shared nature of these risks. For example, too many industry players relying on the same few equipment suppliers for critical parts can result in an acute shortage after a large event. Potential transportation or supply chain interruptions further complicate the shared risks – whether for transporting raw materials to power plants or the mobility of power crews repairing various damaged infrastructure. It is from these kinds of unmanaged interdependencies resulting from today’s complex world that the bad event can cascade into systemic collapse, as occurred following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Addressing such issues through strategic resilience investments presents a host of inherently cross-sector and cross-segment challenges and requires concerted public private partnership to identify and remediate the lack of flexibility and adaptability within certain key infrastructure nodes.


Pg. 14

Answers to: Nuclear power industry already declining

[ ]

[ ] Nuclear power is making a comeback – 2 plants were approved in 2012 and over 20 new plants are being reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Battaglia, writer for The Energy Collective, 2013 (Sarah, “Nuclear Energy Making an Ultimate Comeback?,” The Energy Collective, February 1, Online: http://theenergycollective.com/sbattaglia/179871/nuclear-energy-making-comeback) The energy industry is changing all right, but it might not be headed in the direction you are expecting. Think our country will rely completely on renewable energy? Think again. Nuclear power may actually be making its greatest comeback yet.¶ Out of the 31 countries that have commercial nuclear power, the U.S. possesses the most nuclear capacity and generation, and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. For the first time in 30 years, two new reactors have gained construction approval. In February 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Southern Company’s request to construct two new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle Plant in Georgia, to be operational by 2017.¶ As of the beginning of 2012, the NRC has applications for 28 new reactors. The review process is extremely detail-oriented and typically lasts between 30 and 60 months. Although construction usually takes about 6 years, the Energy Information Administration projects that “the industry will add approximately 19.1 gigawatts (19,100 megawatts) of new nuclear capacity during the period 2012 to 2040, with 11.0 gigawatts coming from new reactors and 8.0 gigawatts coming from uprates of existing plants.”


Pg. 15

Answers to: Grid is reliable

[ ]

[ ] Their evidence doesn’t assume the unique pressures that wind energy puts on the power grid – wind produces will keep producing energy when it’s not needed to earn tax credits, driving out stable electricity sources like nuclear power. Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, 2014 (Steve, “America’s Power Grid at the Limit: The Road to Electrical Blackouts,” April 23, Online: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/americas-power-grid-at-the-limit-the-road-to-electrical-blackouts/) Nuclear generating facilities are also under attack. Many of the 100 nuclear power plants that provided 20 percent of US electricity for decades can no longer be operated profitably. Exelon’s six nuclear power plants in Illinois have operated at a loss for the last six years and are now candidates for closure.¶ What industry pays customers to take its product? The answer is the US wind industry. Wind-generated electricity is typically bid in electrical wholesale markets at negative prices. But how can wind systems operate at negative prices?¶ The answer is that the vast majority of US wind systems receive a federal production tax credit (PTC) of up to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for produced electricity. Some states add an addition credit, such as Iowa, which provides a corporate tax credit of 1.5 cents per kw-hr. So wind operators can supply electricity at a pre-tax price of a negative 3 or 4 cents per kw-hr and still make an after-tax profit from subsidies, courtesy of the taxpayer.¶ As wind-generated electricity has grown, the frequency of negative electricity pricing has grown. When demand is low, such as in the morning, wholesale electricity prices sometimes move negative. In the past, negative market prices have provided a signal to generating systems to reduce output.¶ But wind systems ignore the signal and continue to generate electricity to earn the PTC, distorting wholesale electricity markets. Negative pricing by wind operators and low natural gas prices have pushed nuclear plants into operating losses. Yet, Congress is currently considering whether to again extend the destructive PTC subsidy.¶ Capacity shortages are beginning to appear. A reserve margin deficit of two gigawatts is projected for the summer of 2016 for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), serving the Northern Plains states. Reserve shortages are also projected for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) by as early as this summer.¶ The United States has the finest electricity system in the world, with prices one-half those of Europe. But this system is under attack from foolish energy policies. Coal-fired power plants are closing, unable to meet EPA environmental guidelines. Nuclear plants are aging and beset by mounting losses, driven by negative pricing from subsidized wind systems. Without a return to sensible energy policies, prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures.


Pg. 16

Answers to: Offshore wind increases grid reliability

[ ]

[ ] Nuclear power is the key to a stable national power grid – wind can’t solve because it can’t be stored in large quantities. Weinstein, Writer for The Hill, 2014 (Bernard L., Nuclear Power Can Bring Long-Term Stability to the Stressed Electric Grid, online: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/195548-nuclear-power-can-bring-long-term-stability-to-the) Not surprisingly, the electric power grid is being tested as never before with some utilities asking customers to dial back their thermostats and to avoid using appliances during hours of peak demand. Even so, a few power companies have had to impose rolling blackouts and brownouts as they bump against their generating capacity. The current cold wave should remind us that integrity of the power grid depends on a diverse portfolio of generating options that, in turn, can serve as a hedge against price volatility or supply disruptions. But this diversity may be at risk. America is becoming overly dependent on the use of natural gas for power generation, with new gas-fired plants accounting for 75 percent of all capacity additions since 1995. Meanwhile, the contribution of coal and nuclear plants to the electric grid has been shrinking.¶ Because no currently operating coal plant can meet the proposed EPA standards for greenhouse gas emissions from new plants, we’re unlikely to see additions to the coal fleet. And the GHG standards for existing power plants that will be forthcoming later this year will further accelerate the demise of coal for power generation. What’s more, four nuclear reactors were shut down last year and Entergy recently announced it will close its Vermont Yankee plant by the end of 2014. ¶ To make matters worse, merchant power generators in deregulated states are not investing adequately in new base-load capacity. Because natural gas sets the price for electricity at the margin, and prices are projected to remain below $5 per MCF for the foreseeable future, merchant generators are worried they’ll not be able to recover their capital costs in a deregulated market. In addition, the huge growth of wind generation capacity in response to federal tax incentives and state renewable portfolio standards has further dampened the prospects for capital cost recovery by merchant power generators.¶ Investing in nuclear energy remains the best strategy for ensuring long-term diversity and reliability of the power grid. Despite recent plant closures, nuclear power isn’t going away. Five new plants will come on line by 2018 while 14 other applications are pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.¶ The value proposition for nuclear energy is stronger than ever. Nuclear plants operate around the clock safely and reliably, thereby providing stability to the power grid. They also provide forward price stability and are not subject to the price volatility associated with gas-fired plants. Nuclear operations support large numbers of high-paying jobs and add mightily to the tax base of host communities. Finally, nuclear power is environmentally benign: no particulates, no sulphur dioxide, and no greenhouse gas emissions. Just steam.


Pg. 17

Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Generic)

[ ]

[ ] Their authors are biased lobbyists who are trying to make nuclear power look bad by exaggerating threats. Kidd, Director of Research at the World Nuclear Association, 2010 (Stephen, “Nuclear proliferation risk – is it vastly overrated?,” Nuclear Engineering International, July 23, Online: http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-proliferation-risk-is-it-vastly-overrated) The real problem is that nuclear non-proliferation and security have powerful lobby groups behind them, largely claiming to have nothing against nuclear power as such, apart from the dangers of misuse of nuclear technology. In fact in Washington DC, home of the US federal government, there is a cottage industry of lobby groups dedicated to this. Those who oppose their scaremongering (and it essentially amounts to no more than this) are castigated as being in the industry’s pocket or acting unresponsively to allegedly genuinely expressed public fears. Pointing out that very few new countries will acquire nuclear power by even 2030, and that very few of these will likely express any interest in acquiring enrichment or reprocessing facilities, seems to go completely over their heads. In any case, nuclear fuel cycle technologies are very expensive to acquire and it makes perfect sense to buy nuclear fuel from the existing commercial international supply chain. This already guarantees security of supply, so moves towards international fuel banks are essentially irrelevant, while measures supposedly to increase the proliferation resistance of the fuel cycle are unwarranted, particularly if they impose additional costs on the industry.¶ It is likely that more countries will foolishly choose to acquire nuclear weapons. If they are really determined to do so, there is little really that the world can do to prevent them—the main effort has to be in dissuading them from this course of action. How many countries will have nuclear weapons by 2030 is hard to say, but there could well be a total of 15 by then. Mueller argues that this increase, in itself, will neither prevent nor cause wars, but will impose substantial costs on the countries concerned. Apart from the costs of weapons programmes diverting needed economic resources away from more productive activities, such countries are likely to be faced with economic sanctions which would create severe economic hardship for their citizens but be unlikely to deter them.¶ So there has to be a better way. The problems of regions such as the Middle East will have to be resolved by negotiation, as the presence of many nuclear weapons states will solve nothing. In the absence of leadership by madmen, the spectre of mutually-assured destruction will merely maintain the status quo; acquiring nuclear weapons will grant a country more criticism than international prestige. Meanwhile, the commercial nuclear sector will hopefully be allowed to flourish without too many people chipping away at the margins by raising unwarranted fears about its activities (and imposing additional financial costs, which is what it eventually amounts to).


Pg. 18

Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Generic)

[ ]

[ ] Wind energy is intermittent because wind doesn’t blow all the time – it requires a fossil fuel back up to function, which makes it dirtier than nuclear energy in the long run. Vine, Senior Energy Fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2014 (Doug, “Climate Solutions: The Role of Nuclear Power”, online: http://www.c2es.org/publications/climate-solutions-role-nuclear-power) The federal renewable production tax credit (PTC), first enacted in 1992, has played a critical role in building the U.S. wind energy industry. The PTC allows a wind project to claim a $22/MWh credit for its first 10 years of operation.21 In addition, wind projects are also able to sell renewable energy credits (RECs) that utilities in many states need to comply with renewable portfolio standards.22 The combination of zero fuel costs, the PTC, and RECs, has led in certain conditions to wind generation setting very low, or even negative prices in market regions.23

¶ In a wholesale power market, negative prices are a signal that a particular location is over-served by generation. In the short term, negative prices essentially send generators an economic signal to shut down. However, there may be very short-term circumstances when a power company would actually want to pay a system operator to take its power, such as when it would be more costly for a coal or nuclear plant to power down completely and restart than to pay the operator for a short period of negative prices. When low and negative prices persist over time, it can be a signal not only that investment in new generation in this location is unnecessary, but also that it may not be profitable to keep a current generation source in operation. Failure to anticipate the need for new generation capacity due to flawed market signals could jeopardize future system reliability.¶ Additionally, a two-party power purchase agreement (a bilateral contract between the purchaser and the generator) is a widely used hedging strategy against electricity price volatility. Since these agreements are typically negotiated based on historical wholesale prices, when persistently low and negative prices exist at a particular market location, it becomes difficult for a generator to obtain a power purchase agreement. For instance, the expectation that it would be unable to renew its power purchase agreements during a time of low regional wholesale power prices led to Dominion Power’s decision to close its Kewaunee Power Station.24

¶ In summary, policies like the PTC and state renewable portfolio standards have been critical in spurring necessary increases in renewable generation, particularly wind power. However, as greater quantities of these renewables are bid into competitive wholesale power markets, prices are likely to become very low or negative more often, which could remove the incentive to build new electricity generation of any type—including renewables. These policies, in addition to other factors such as low natural gas prices and market structures, will continue to put pressure on existing nuclear power, which is also a zero-emission source. Furthermore, swapping renewables for nuclear, it is not a zero-sum trade of zero-emissions sources. As explained in the section above, since renewables are intermittent and not currently appropriate for baseload generation, they must be backstopped by a consistently available electricity source, which is usually a fossil fuel source with associated greenhouse gas emissions. In order to preserve and expand the nuclear fleet while continuing to encourage the development of other new zero-emission sources, it may become necessary to reconsider the way in which wholesale markets function.

http://www.c2es.org/publications/climate-solutions-role-nuclear-power#endnote21





Pg. 19

Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Proliferation)

[ ]

[ ] The Non-proliferation Treaty established a variety of safeguards that limit the illegal spread of nuclear material – the risk of proliferation is very low. Kidd, Director of Research at the World Nuclear Association, 2010 (Stephen, “Nuclear proliferation risk – is it vastly overrated?,” Nuclear Engineering International, July 23, Online: http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-proliferation-risk-is-it-vastly-overrated) Nevertheless, over the past 35 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguards system under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a conspicuous international success in curbing the diversion of civil uranium into military uses. Most countries have indeed renounced nuclear weapons, recognising that possessing of them would threaten rather than enhance national security. They have therefore embraced the NPT as a public commitment to use nuclear materials and technology only for peaceful purposes.¶ “The greatest risk of nuclear weapons proliferation has traditionally rested with countries which have not joined the NPT and which have significant unsafeguarded nuclear activities. India, Pakistan and Israel are in this category. While safeguards apply ¶ to some of their activities, others remain beyond scrutiny.”¶ Parties to the NPT agree to accept technical safeguards measures applied by the IAEA, complemented by controls on the export of sensitive technology from countries such as UK and USA through voluntary bodies such as the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG). Safeguards require that operators of nuclear facilities maintain and declare detailed accounting records of all movements and transactions involving nuclear material. The aim is to deter the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful use by maximising the risk of early detection. At a broader level they provide assurance to the international community that countries are honouring their treaty commitments to use nuclear materials and facilities exclusively for peaceful purposes. In this way safeguards are a service both to the international community and to individual states, who recognise that it is in their own interest to demonstrate compliance with these commitments.


Pg. 20

Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Target for terrorism)

[ ]

[ ] Existing security measures will prevent terrorist attacks on nuclear power facilities. Kidd, Director of Research at the World Nuclear Association, 2010 (Stephen, “Nuclear proliferation risk – is it vastly overrated?,” Nuclear Engineering International, July 23, Online: http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-proliferation-risk-is-it-vastly-overrated) Similarly, the task of the atomic terrorist is far from simple. If it were as easy as many people claim, why haven’t there been any incidents, even when the controls on nuclear materials were far looser than today? And why do terrorist incidents (with the possible exception of the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995) usually involve low tech methods, such as people attaching bombs to themselves or taking over commercial airlines armed with box cutters and then flying them into prominent buildings? There may not be, in reality, any substantive black market in nuclear materials, despite the stories we regularly hear of nuclear trafficking. The comparison sometimes made with narcotic drugs is not reasonable; although drug seizures are known to be the tip of a very large iceberg, controls on the production, trade and transport of nuclear materials are much stiffer and potential buyers are very limited in number.¶ First, security considerations have been addressed by deploying additional armed personnel at facilities and by other measures to prevent incursions, while new nuclear plants are designed with the possibility of an aircraft impact much in mind. Although such events are clearly not impossible, the entire 50-year history of civil nuclear power contains nothing to suggest that the risks are other than very remote. Little can be done other than what has been accomplished already and the risks should certainly not be allowed to dominate the assessment of potential future actions. Indeed, critics of nuclear power are very bad at keeping things in perspective and fail to apply similar degrees of scrutiny to other plans. For example, should football stadiums not be licensed for 80,000 fans, simply because a direct aircraft strike during a game could conceivably kill many thousands? Should the walls of the stadium have to be several metres thick?


Pg. 21

Answers to: Nuclear power bad (Radioactive waste)

[ ]

[ ] Wind energy is comparatively worse for the environment – unlike the wind industry, nuclear power companies are held to strict environmental regulations that control waste. Fisher and Fitzsimmons, Analysts at The Institute for Energy Research, 2013 (Travis and Alex, “Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste,” Institute for Energy Research, October 23, Online: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/10/23/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/) For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.¶ While nuclear storage remains an important issue for many U.S. environmentalists, few are paying attention to the wind industry’s less efficient and less transparent use of radioactive material via rare earth mineral excavation in China. The U.S. nuclear industry employs numerous safeguards to ensure that spent nuclear fuel is stored safely. In 2010, the Obama administration withdrew funding for Yucca Mountain, the only permanent storage site for the country’s nuclear waste authorized by federal law. Lacking a permanent solution, nuclear energy companies have used specially designed pools at individual reactor sites. On the other hand, China has cut mining permits and imposed export quotas, but is only now beginning to draft rules to prevent illegal mining and reduce pollution. America may not have a perfect solution to nuclear storage, but it sure beats disposing of radioactive material in toxic lakes like near Baotou, China.¶ Not only do rare earths create radioactive waste residue, but according to the Chinese Society for Rare Earths, “one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, [and] approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater.”¶ Conclusion¶ Wind energy is not nearly as “clean” and “good for the environment” as the wind lobbyists want you to believe. The wind industry is dependent on rare earth minerals imported from China, the procurement of which results in staggering environmental damages. As one environmentalist told the Daily Mail, “There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.” That the destruction is mostly unseen and far-flung does not make it any less damaging.¶ All forms of energy production have some environmental impact. However, it is disingenuous for wind lobbyists to hide the impacts of their industry while highlighting the impacts of others. From illegal bird deaths to radioactive waste, wind energy poses serious environmental risks that the wind lobby would prefer you never know about. This makes it easier for them when arguing for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports.

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/06/19/yucca-mountain-the-safe-future-for-nuclear-energy/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/china-drafting-rare-earth-rules-on-mining-association-says.html

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=baotou+china&hl=en&ll=40.644959,109.72724&spn=0.053142,0.120678&hnear=Baotou,+Inner+Mongolia,+China&gl=us&t=h&z=14

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rareearth.pdf


Pg. 22

Impact: Turns Climate Change – Wind requires fossil fuel backup

[ ] Wind can never fully replace nuclear power without relying on fossil fuels – can’t do baseload generation Decher, PhD in Nuclear Engineering and Member of the ANS Public Information Committee, 2012 (Ulrich, Replacing Nuclear with Wind Power: Could it Be Done? The Energy Collective, Online: http://theenergycollective.com/ansorg/84553/replacing-nuclear-wind-power-could-it-be-done) So, the conclusion is that intermittently generated electricity cannot replace baseload generation. Just like there is a chance that none of the super-green cars are working on a particular day, there is also a chance that no electricity is generated by an intermittent source. Hence, all the conventional power sources are still needed.¶ Intermittent power sources can be of value, however, because they do save fuel in conventional power plants. But the economics are usually not very good at today’s fuel prices. In the car analogy, I compute that my 20-mile round-trip commute to work would save me about two gallons of gas a month if the super-green car gets double the mileage of my conventional car. At $4 per gallon, that is $8 per month saving. It is obvious that, from an economic point of view, this saving is nowhere near the hundreds of dollars required per month to own an extra car. Similarly, I wrote an article explaining that wind farms cannot be justified on an economic basis, except in Hawaii, where expensive oil is used to generate electricity.¶ But perhaps using intermittent power plants can be justified environmentally. Perhaps not burning fossil fuels is worth the environmental benefit of not releasing as much greenhouse gases. Also, the fossil resource can be saved for other uses such as plastics. That argument breaks down, however, when the baseload generator is nuclear. Nuclear power does not generate greenhouse gases during operation. Saving the uranium for other uses is not applicable, because uranium has no other commercial uses. What exactly would we be saving it for?¶ So, to answer the general question, can wind power replace nuclear? The answer is clearly no. No technology is perfect, and there is always some impact in everything we do. Nuclear has the capability to meet the electrical needs for humanity for a millennia. That is a very compelling reason to use it, versus using a technology that only works intermittently and requires keeping all the conventional generators that we already have.

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/01/27/the-economics-of-wind-power/

Offshore Wind Affirmative, Offshore Wind Negative ...dallasurbandebate.wikispaces.com/file/view/DUDA Novice Core Files... · Offshore Wind Affirmative, Offshore Wind Negative, & ...

Documents