1NCThe PTC incentivizes using negative pricing by wind utilities—this crowds out more sustainable forms of energy and ensure grid failureGoreham 2014 (Steve [Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America]; US Power grid at the limit; Apr 25; thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/204194-us-power-grid-at-the-limit; kdf)

Americans take electricity for granted. Electricity powers our lights, our computers, our offices, and our industries. But misguided environmental policies are eroding the reliability of our power system. Last winter, bitterly cold weather placed massive stress on the U.S. electrical system―and the system almost broke. On January 7 in the midst of the polar vortex, PJM Interconnection, the Regional Transmission Organization serving the heart of America from New Jersey to Illinois, experienced a new all-time peak winter load of almost 142,000 megawatts. Eight of the top ten of PJM’s all-time winter peaks occurred in January 2014. Heroic efforts by grid operators saved large parts of the nation’s heartland from blackouts during record-cold temperature days. Nicholas Akins, CEO of American Electric Power, stated in

Congressional testimony, “This country did not just dodge a bullet―we dodged a cannon ball.” Environmental policies established by

Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are moving us toward electrical grid failure. The capacity reserve margin for hot or cold weather events is shrinking in many regions. According to Philip Moeller, commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “…the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already

at the limit.” EPA policies, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Section 316 Cooling Water Rule, are forcing the closure of many coal-fired plants, which provided 39 percent of U.S. electricity last year. American Electric Power, a provider of about ten percent of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one-quarter of the firm’s coal-fired generating plants in the next fourteen months.

Eighty-nine percent of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January. Not all of this capacity has replacement plans. In addition to shrinking reserve margin, electricity prices are becoming less stable. Natural gas-fired plants are replacing many of the closing coal-fired facilities. Gas powered 27 percent of U.S. electricity in 2013, up from 18 percent a decade earlier. When natural gas is plentiful, its price is competitive with that of coal fuel. But natural gas is not stored on plant sites like coal. When electrical and heating demand spiked in January, gas was in short supply. Gas prices soared by a factor of twenty, from $5 per million BTU to over $100 per million BTU. Consumers were subsequently shocked by utility bills several times higher than in previous winters.

On top of existing regulations, the EPA is pushing for carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants, as part of the “fight” against human-caused climate change. If enacted, these new regulations will force coal-fired plants to either close or add expensive carbon capture and storage technology. This EPA crusade against global warming

continues even though last winter was the coldest U.S. winter since 1911-1912. 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.

Unreliable power sources like wind ensure grid collapseBarret 2012 (Michael; Ensuring the Resilience of the U.S. Electrical Grid – Part II: Managing the Chaos – and Costs – of Shared Risks - See more at: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ensuring-the-resilience-of-the-u-s-electrical-grid-part-ii-managing-the-chaos-and-costs-of-shared-risks/#sthash.6d3KyupU.dpuf; Nov 5; www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ensuring-the-resilience-of-the-u-s-electrical-grid-part-ii-managing-the-chaos-and-costs-of-shared-risks/; kdf)

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.

Terrorism and economic collapse will ensue- this is the most probable impactBarret 2012 (Michael; Ensuring the Resilience of the U.S. Electrical Grid – Part II: Managing the Chaos – and Costs – of Shared Risks - See more at: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ensuring-the-resilience-of-the-u-s-electrical-grid-part-ii-managing-the-chaos-and-costs-of-shared-risks/#sthash.6d3KyupU.dpuf; Nov 5; www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ensuring-the-resilience-of-the-u-s-electrical-grid-part-ii-managing-the-chaos-and-costs-of-shared-risks/; kdf)

Importantly, while severe weather and other disruptive events provide ample evidence of the increased likelihood of events taking place, it is actually the increased severity that creates the more significant impacts, for in today’s hyper-complex and ever more interdependent world the impact of any given event can cascade well beyond its immediate vicinity. This reality was demonstrated on March 11, 2011 when a powerful tsunami hit Japan’s nuclear power generation capabilities in Fukushima and resulted in power and other disruptions that affected global manufacturing. As one analyst noted, The quake and

tsunami damaged or closed down key ports, and some airports shut briefly. This disrupted the global supply chain of semiconductor equipment and materials. Japan manufactures 20% of the world’s semiconductor products, including NAND flash, an indispensable electronic part of Apple’s iPad. Japan also supplies the wings, landing gears and other major parts of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner… Automakers Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi and Suzuki [also] temporarily suspended production. Nissan may move one production line to the U.S. A total of 22 plants, including Sony, were shut in the area. As a result, the effects of a tsunami and related power disruption half the world away included a global economic impact totaling in the billions of dollars and lost economic productivity involving everything from consumer products to automobiles

and companies in Japan, Vietnam and the United States, to name only a few. Given the trends of global trade and worldwide sourcing for everything from raw materials to consumer goods, industrial equipment, and even consulting and professional services, the scale of deleterious impacts from cascading failures in an interconnected world is significant and rising. Sources of the Growing Risk 1) Severity: Many risk analysts believe the most noteworthy trend of late has been the particular increase in probable severity of impacts from any significant disruption. The root cause of concern in this regard is the dramatic and mostly unconscious increase in the complexity of the interdependencies within our overall economy which mean

that, because a disruption in a highly interconnected area like electrical power will have pronounced cascading effects across all manner of economic, transportation, telecommunications, and financial services industries, the severity of any disruption might be orders of magnitude worse than people would expect based on historical precedent. This was the case in the August 14, 2003, blackout in portions of the Northeast and Midwest United States and Ontario, Canada, causing an estimated economic loss of $6 billion in the United States alone (see case study in Part I). Specifically, some of the main concerns in this regard include the personal and private sector costs of disruptions through lost productivity or damage to homes and workplaces, as well as the social impact of potential widespread death and destruction such as when a severe heat wave that hit

France in 2003 resulted in some 14,800 deaths. At the same time, one must also take account of potential national and homeland security impacts stemming from the loss of power to critical command and control centers that would negatively impact the coordination of response efforts, potentially including even our nation’s defensive forces. 2) Likelihood: The likelihood of the national power grid being impacted by adverse events is also on the rise due to myriad significant threats and hazards. In fact, according to the Department of Energy, of the five massive U.S. blackouts over the past 40 years, three of them occurred in the past nine years while the average outage from 1996-2000 affected 409,854 people, a 15% increase over the previous five-year period. This is in large part because today’s threats can stem from physical decay of the existing decades-old infrastructure as well as exposure of more and more of the system to the impacts of a growing population that is increasing per-person power consumption while moving both to crowded cities or spreading further and further into areas

that were once scarcely inhabited. Hazards also come from changing weather patterns that include major storms and more days and even weeks or months of extreme temperatures. As can be plainly seen from the challenges of combating droughts and the buckling of the pavement of American highways during the summer of 2012, for example, the manifestation of extreme hot or cold weather can push infrastructure beyond its design limitations, which in turn creates additional unforeseen cascading effects. While the impact to various physical linkages, couplings, substations, and other equipment of the power grid may be less visible than buckling highways, the results of the extreme temperatures on the built environment of the electrical grid are no less pronounced, including equipment failure,

high-stress of the system, and shorter maintenance and replacement intervals for critical components. Another important potential risk facing the electrical grid is that of malicious actors, be they terrorists like al Qaeda or Hezbollah, the military of other nations competing economically or otherwise with the U.S., or even lone-wolf anarchists or disgruntled employees. While attacks like these may seem unlikely, their intent and potential impacts mean they must be considered in terms of protecting the power grid, especially in light of the well-publicized potential cyber vulnerabilities of key segments of our existing electrical grid infrastructure.

Growth key to prevent warRoyal 10 — Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010 (“Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, Published by Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 0857240048, p. 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult [end page 213] to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing . Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other . (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions . Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels .5 This implied connection

between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. [end page 214] Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

Uniqueness- AT: Nuke on declineNuclear power is ramping up in the US-California; SC; Georgia

Litvak 2014 (Anya; Westinghouse shakes up prospects for West Coast nuclear power; Jul 14; powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies-powersource/2014/07/11/PUC-files-complaint-against-HIKO-Energy-for-overcharging-customers/stories/201407110176; kdf)

Westinghouse Electric Co. sees something in the West Coast that isn’ t all that obvious to others: a nuclear future. When the Cranberry-based company announced last month that it has started the federal approval process for an AP1000 reactor that can function in areas of high earthquake risk , Rita Bowser,

Westinghouse’ s lead on the effort, said the firm’ s main target is the U.S. West Coast. For all practical purposes, that means California — a state with three strikes against new nuclear power plants at the moment. First, about 45 percent of California’ s power generation comes from natural gas, a fuel that is currently relatively inexpensive and plentiful. Natural gas plants can be built faster and

more cheaply than nuclear reactors. Westinghouse’ s first four AP1000 models are under construction in Georgia and South Carolina, two states with regulated electricity markets where utilities building the plants can recover their capital costs from ratepayers. California, however, is deregulated and competitive. It also has a three-decade-long moratorium on building new nuclear plants until the federal government identifies and builds a permanent storage facility

for spent nuclear fuel, a second issue to overcome. Third, the state is pumping significant amounts of money into increasing renewable generation and, in parallel, funding energy storage projects that would help even out the intermittency of alternative power and help it function more like a baseload power source .

Nuclear power is safe and coming to a state near youShughart 2014 (William F.; Coal and nuclear power belong in Utah’s energy policy portfolio; Jul 15; www.standard.net/Guest-Commentary/2014/07/16/Coal-and-nuclear-power-belong-in-Utah-s-energy-policy-portfolio.html; kdf)

Nuclear power is another viable option to coal. As the demand for electricity at home and abroad grows, new nuclear plants are being built. Four reactors — two each in Georgia and South Carolina — are under construction, and two others have been approved for construction in Florida. All of the reactors use an advanced

“AP1000” design, in which a plant’s components are built off-site in factories and then delivered for assembly. Worries that new nuclear plants cannot be built on time and on budget therefore are fading. A number of other countries, including China and Great Britain, likewise are building AP1000 reactors, using U.S. expertise. Why is Utah behind the nuclear curve?

Unique Link-Negative PricingNuclear is growing now- any extension of the PTC guarantees the trend reversesRTO Insider 2014 (Wind generators: we're not the nuke's problem; Apr 22; www.rtoinsider.com/exelon-awea-ptc/; kdf)

AWEA: “Market price data and wind plant output data show that most instances of negative prices occurred when wind plant output was very low. … If Exelon were correct, and wind plants were the factor causing these negative prices, one would expect to only see negative prices during hours when wind plants were producing at nearly full capacity.” Three incidents that appear to have involved localized transmission outages were responsible for most of the negative prices affecting the LaSalle, Braidwood, Byron, Quad Cities and Clinton plants in 2013, Goggin said. Patterson agrees with AWEA that transmission outages play a role in negative prices — along with, he says, unexpectedly low load or unexpectedly high wind production. “Disentangling the specific cause for a

specific negative price is very hard,” he said. But he said the frequency of negative prices has grown since 2008, “which coincides with the expansion of wind capacity in Iowa and Illinois and surrounding regions. The nuclear plants were there [before]. The transmission was what it was. The load is what is was. What changed? The wind.” Tx Upgrades Reducing Negative Prices AWEA: “Instances of negative prices have rapidly dropped to near zero in all regions of the country. … Negative prices are being eliminated as long-needed transmission upgrades are completed and grid operating procedures are modernized.” AWEA cites data showing the frequency of negative prices peaking in Illinois in 2009 and 2010 and falling since, consistent with the Northbridge report. “It’s too early to tell whether we’re going to see a trend of reduced negative pricing,” responded Exelon’s Dominguez. “Transmission [expansions are] always trying play catch-up to the introduction of subsidized generation. The reality is we have seen many years of negative pricing. We can’t claim victory

simply because one season it didn’t show up.” PTC Discourages Investment in Conventional Generation AWEA has noted the boom-and-bust cycle of wind capacity additions in response to cancellation and resumption of the PTC. Northbridge says the PTC also discourages investments in conventional generation needed to maintain reliability. “In recent years, about 85% of total wind capacity has not operated during the peak hours on the highest demand days of the

year, on average,” the Northbridge report says. “Controllable conventional generation is thus needed to backstop wind and ensure the lights stay on.” Goggin said wind also contributes to reliability, noting it provided PJM more than 3,000 MW of generation during the polar vortex, when many coal- and gas-fired generators suffered forced outages. “No resource is 100% reliable. This past winter was a very good example of that,” he said. “Every resource is backed up by all other resources.”

Link- Nuke Power Crowd OutRenewable energies, such as solar and wind, and nuclear power won’t be able to exist together due to the high competition.

Alternate Energy Stocks – 2008 Tom Konrad. Colorado Renewable Energy Society Board Treasurer. Alternate Energy Stocks. 15 June 2008. Are Solar PV and Wind Incompatible with Nuclear and IGCC?. http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2008/06/solar_pv_and_wind_may_be_at_odds_with_nuclear_and_igcc.html.

Paul Denholm, a Senior Analyst at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), sees an upcoming struggle between renewable sources of electricity such as photovoltaics (PV) and wind with low-carbon baseload alternatives for space on the low carbon grid of the future. These baseload alternatives are nuclear and Internal Gasification Combined Cycle coal plants with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (IGCC w/ CCS, refereed to by advocates as "Clean Coal).

Nuclear power’s production of cheap and easy electricity locks it in a zero-sum game with renewables.Tom Konrad, July 8, 2007 (Ph.D. in Mathematics from Purdue University) http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2007/07/toomanybrownies.html Will We Have Too Much Generation for Renewables?

No Room for Renewable Energy? With all this cheap and easy energy efficiency potential, there should be little need to build new power plants despite increasing population growth. Yet utilities continue to project strong electricity growth so that they can justify large capital outlays on new coal fired and nuclear generation (on which they can earn a nearly guaranteed

return on equity, regardless of whether the power is needed.) This could potentially be very bad news for renewable energy investors. If electric demand does not grow, new generation will only be needed to replace old plants as they are retired, and planning and construction of a traditional coal or nuclear plant can take the better part of a decade (a sharp contrast to utility scale wind and solar farms, which can be planned and built in 1-2 years.) Plugging in to Renewables If energy efficiency keeps new electricity demand to a minimum, or even reduces it, and our utilities are building new fossil or nuclear generation anyway, it seems like there will be little room for new renewable generation . Nothing will be gained by not

pursuing energy efficiency which is almost always much cleaner and greener than even renewable electricity. Yet this seems to leave renewable energy locked into a zero-sum game fighting for limited electrical demand with coal and nuclear, which already have a head start in the permitting process. Unlike renewable generation, which can be built

quickly in small increments to match shorter-term, more accurate demand projections, large coal and nuclear plants must be built years ahead of time to meet longer term (and inherently less accurate) demand projections, a fact with the perverse consequence that planning for coal and nuclear often starts sooner, leaving renewable sources of generation squabbling for the crumbs if demand, if any such crumbs are left.

AT: Grid Reliable/ Link TurnTheir 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.

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.

Internal Link-EconomyGrid collapse destroys the foundations of the economyJagdfeld 2012 Aaron Jagdfeld, is president and chief executive officer of Generac Power Systems in Waukesha, WI. http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/08/06/india-style-blackout-could-strike-the-u-s/

More people in the United States were affected by power outages last year than at any time in the industrial age. Yet what we faced during the past year pales in comparison to the largest electrical outage in world history that knocked out power to nearly 700 million people last week in India, crippling their economy. The U.S. is one of the most developed nations in the world. Our day-to-day interactions are guided by technologies and innovations that rely upon the power grid. But as we continue to develop technological mastery, our power grid is aging and fragile, and its susceptibility to outages means our way of life could break down in an instant. Unlike generations past, our lives and businesses are now connected through a vast network of computers and data centers that consume enormous amounts of electricity. Our homes are bigger, with more luxuries and appliances than ever. We count on power in ways our parents couldn’t imagine. Power quality is the measure of reliable power in our homes and businesses, and it has been declining steadily since 1990. During this time, demand for power has increased by 25%, but the infrastructure needed to transmit power to homes has increased by a mere 7%. We have become a digital society, but are burdened with an analog power grid—one that is inefficient and susceptible to weather, surging demand, and even terrorist attack. Each outage comes at a cost; the average cost of a one-second outage among industrial and digital firms is about $1,477. That means the U.S. economy loses between $104 billion and $164 billion each year to power outages. Losses like that affect all of us. An outage lasting days, as in India, would represent hundreds of billions of dollars lost, taxing our already fragile economy. Fixing our power grid is no simple feat. The best estimates put the price tag for a new grid at two trillion dollars, or about 14% of our current gross domestic product. There is no legitimate national plan to create a new grid, nor are there public funds available to fix the grid we have. American utility companies are as constrained as the government when it comes to meaningful investment in grid improvement. The 3,200 utility companies that touch the power grid are regulated by an equal number of agencies, many of which exist solely to minimize cost to consumers. This is undeniably good for consumers in most cases, but it has left us with a broken power grid that no one is responsible for (or capable of) fixing.

Impact Ext- Collapse BadThe impact is worse than nuclear warHuff 12 Ethan A. Huff, staff writer for Natural News, quoting David Chalk, PhD in Technology from University of the Fraser Valley, Hacking expert David Chalk says 100 percent certainty of catastrophic failure of smart energy grid within three years http://www.naturalnews.com/035755_power_grid_failure_blackouts.html~~%23ixzz25hUgC5tu

(NaturalNews) For at least the past five years, the federal government has been pushing utility companies across America to "upgrade" their infrastructures to support "smart grid" technology that allows two-way communication with, and centralized control of, the energy grid

through an internet-based network. But cyber expert David Chalk says that a complete and catastrophic failure of the entire smart energy grid is definitely going to occur within the next three years , and that few are aware of this. Traditionally, the electric meters attached to structures, the wired and underground poles that deliver electricity to them, and the plants where electricity are generated have all been operated and maintained independently by field workers who gather data in a one-way system of communication. In other words, when a problem occurs with an electric meter or a pole in the traditional system, an expert has to go out and assess the problem, as there is no automated way for the system itself to send feedback. For this reason and others, many have hailed smart grid technology as the solution, and as the way to bring the electric grid into the 21st century. But according to Chalk and many other experts in

the field, smart grid technology is highly vulnerable to cyber attacks, and the technology is so digitally centralized that hackers are sure to "crack the code," so to speak, and eventually bring down the system. "We're in a state of crisis," says Chalk. "The front door is open and there is no lock to be had. There is not a power meter or device on the grid that is protected from hacking -- if not already infected -- with some sort of trojan horse that can cause the grid to be shut down or completely

annihilated." Solar storms, digital warfare threaten to bring down the smart grid Smart grid technology is also vulnerable to failure from solar storms and digital warfare, both of which could quickly take down the entire system in an instant, leaving millions, and potentially billions, of people in the dark without power. Smart grid technology also comes with its own unique health and privacy risks that are being ignored by its proponents as well. "Unless we wake up and realize what we're doing, there is 100 percent certainty of total catastrophic failure of the

entire power infrastructure within three years," adds Chalk. "This could actually be worse than a nuclear war, because it would happen everywhere. How governments and utilities are blindly merging the power grid with the Internet, and effectively without any protection, is insanity at its finest."

Impact Ext- Chemical plant explosionsLeads to chemical plant explosions – outweighs nuclear warLatynina 2003 Yulia Latynina, journalist for Novaya Gazeta~World Press Review (VOL. 50, No. 11) www.worldpress.org/Americas/1579.cfm ~

The scariest thing about the cascading power outages was not spoiled groceries in the fridge, or elevators getting stuck, or even, however cynical it may sound, sick patients left to their own devices without electricity-powered medical equipment. The scariest thing of all was chemical plants and refineries with 24-hour operations, which, if interrupted, can result in consequences even more disastrous and on a larger scale than those of an atomic bomb explosion. So it is safe to say that Americans got lucky this time. Several hours after the disaster, no one could know for certain whether the power outage was caused by an accident or someone’s evil design. In fact, the disaster on the East Coast illustrates just one thing: A modern city is in itself a bomb, regardless of whether someone sets off the detonator intentionally or by accident. As I recall, when I was writing my book Industrial Zone, in which business deals were bound to lead to a massive industrial catastrophe, at some point in time I was considering making a cascading power outage the cause of a catastrophe. Back then, I was amazed and shocked at the swiftness of the process. Shutting down at least one electric power plant is enough to cause a drop in power output throughout the entire power grid. This is followed by an automatic shutdown of nuclear power plants, a further catastrophic drop in power, and finally a cascading outage of the entire grid system.

Impact Ext- Grid CollapseGrid collapse leads to 71 nuclear meltdownsGoldes 11 Mark Goldes Former Research Fellow at Brandeis University is Founder of the Aesop Institute. Formerly Senior Director of the Berlin Corridor control radar in Germanyfor US Air Force; SOLAR MEGASTORMS can GENERATE a GLOBAL NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE; http://www.opednews.com/articles/SOLAR-MEGASTORMS-can-GENER-by-Mark-Goldes-111119-448.html

A map of the USA on the Aesop Institute website reflects a NASA study based on the 1921 solar storm. There are two huge areas that NASA warns can experience a total loss of the electrical grid for years. After one month without grid power nuclear plants and many other nuclear installations are in danger of life-threatening meltdowns. The NASA map shows the possible effect, if one of the powerful solar emissions that may strike in this decade, smashes into our geomagnetic field. Far worse than any terror attack, the entire world is totally unprepared for such an event. Based on this NASA map 71 nuclear plants in the USA are at direct risk from a solar megastorm. These nuclear plants could be without grid electricity necessary for cooling their fuel pools. Imagine 71 Fukushima meltdowns in this country. More than 400 facilities are at risk worldwide. Without including probable nuclear plant meltdowns, NASA estimated the price tag in the USA could reach $2 Trillion the first year, with 4 to 10 years required for full recovery. NOAA Assistant Secretary Kathryn Sullivan says countries should prepare for "potentially devastating effects." Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who in 1984 became the first woman to walk in space, said in Geneva that "it is not a question of if, but really a matter of when a major solar event could hit our planet." "Widespread disruption of electric service can quickly ... endanger millions." Joseph McClelland Director, Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a little publicized multi-trillion dollar, planet wide nightmare! Preventative steps could minimize the damage.

Impact Ext- TerrorismTerrorism results in extinctionAyson 2010 (Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July,)

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily

represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal,

there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves.¶ But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem.¶ It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well.¶ Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some

indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41¶ Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and

probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? ¶ In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or

encourager of the attack?¶ Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly

nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow ,

although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. ¶ As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets,

Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of

advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.¶ There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability?¶ If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation.¶ If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and

perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of

thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would

Washington have to communicate that displeasure?¶ If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

AT: 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).

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.

AT: 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?

AT: 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.

AT: 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.

AFF Answers

Aff- No Negative pricingNegative pricing nearly never occurs- multiple reasons Trabish 2013 (Herman; Wind and the Myth of Widespread Negative Pricing; May 20; www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Wind-And-The-Myth-of-Widespread-Negative-Pricing; kdf)

Negative pricing happens when an energy generator would rather pay the grid operator to take its produced electricity than shut down. For nuclear power plants which can only run at full speed or not at all, for example, it is much more costly to shut down and start up than to pay to avoid having to do so. In extremely infrequent instances, in isolated regions where wind development is ahead of the transmission build-out needed to move it to larger

load centers, the market price is set by wind, Goggin explained. When there is nothing but wind to sell, wind project owners can pay grid operators to take their output. With the PTC, they can sell as low as negative $23 per megawatt-hour and still break even. “This almost never happens,” Goggin said, "and it is important not to get the impression from Lesser’s testimony to the subcommittee that it is commonplace and is due to the PTC.” Subsidies, and in particular the wind production tax credit, Lesser testified, allow intermittent generation developers to “pay only

a small fraction of the true costs they impose on the electric system. This is having adverse economic impacts.” “The majority of U.S. cases where this is happening are in West Texas [which accounts for] only about 5 percent of ERCOT’s output,” Goggin said. “It is only in that 5 percent in the western zone, and over the last couple of years, that you have seen some negative prices. And it is going away

at the end of this year, even there, when their new transmission goes on-line.” Wind only sets the market price if it is the most expensive resource on the system, and that almost never happens because wind has a zero fuel cost, Goggin explained. If wind is setting the price, it means that everything else in the area has been turned off, and that only happens on very localized parts of the grid. “You never get to a situation where across an entire system like PJM or the California ISO there is only wind,”

Goggin said. “And as the grid gets built out, those isolated areas and rare instances are going away. In Texas, we have already seen about a 60 percent reduction in the instances of negative pricing over the last year because of new transmission, and, by the end of this year, it should be almost eliminated .” It would require a massive amount of wind and other renewables to create a threat to match Lesser’s concerns, Goggin said. “In PJM, the average demand is something like 70 gigawatts to 90 gigawatts or more, and there are 6 gigawatts of wind. They have a long way to go. At some point in the future, there might be enough wind so that it could set the market price. But that is many years away, and we will have figured out how to structure electricity markets to accommodate more of the energy we want by then.”

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.

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 regula- tions 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 down- time 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.